JC 

11 

J42 


f^DWARD  JENKS,  M.A. 


LIBRARY     ' 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALirORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


<  \   r. 


^^?:- 


NEW   YORti 

E.   P.   DUTTON   &  COMPANY 


681    FiftK   Avenue 


l^gggjyUgiglBOHafill 


Copyright,  1900 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  electrotyped  April,  1900 

Reprinted  September,  1902 

January,  1907,  January,  1909 

July,  1918 


PREFACE 

Some  ten  years  ago  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  published  a 
valuable  and  interesting  little  book  on  the  history  of  politi- 
cal speculation.*  But  the  author  is  not  aware  that  any  one 
has  yet  attempted  to  summarize  in  a  brief,  popular  form, 
the  record  of  political  action.  It  has  occurred,  therefore, 
to  the  promoters  of  this  Series  that  such  a  summary  might 
prove  interesting,  if  only  by  way  of  comparison. 

These  pages  profess  to  give,  then,  a  brief  account  of 
what  men  have  done,  not  of  what  they  have  thought,  in 
that  important  branch  of  human  activity  which  we  call  Poli- 
tics, or  the  Art  of  Government.  But  if  it  should  be  ob- 
jected that  what  men  do  is  really  always  the  outcome, 
more  or  less  perfect,  of  what  they  think,  the  answer  is,  that 
we  recognize,  for  practical  purposes,  a  distinction  between 
what  the  world,  in  theory  at  least,  believes  to  be  best,  and 
that  which  it  actually  succeeds  in  achieving.  And  a  com- 
parison of  the  two  objects  can  hardly  fail  to  be  instructive. 

To  the  other,  and  inevitable  objection,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible, within  the  narrow  limits  of  a  popular  sketch,  to  deal 
with  such  a  subject  as   the  History  of  Politics,  the  author 

*  "An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Science  of  Politics."  By 
(Sir)  Frederick  Pollock.  London,  1890.  A  new  edition  has  recently 
been  published. 

(v) 


Vi  PREFACE 

will  reply  with  the  doctrine  which,  paradoxical  as  it  may 
sound,  is  yet  maintained  by  very  able  writers,  that  the 
greater  the  subject  the  smaller  the  space  in  which  it  can  be 
treated.  Readers  who  care  to  see  parts  of  the  subject 
worked  out  in  greater  detail  may  be  referred  to  the 
author's  "Law  and  Politics  in  the  Middle  Ages"  (Murray, 
1898). 

Oxford,  January,  1900. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTORY 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    Types  of  Society i 


TYPE  I— SAVAGE  SOCIETY 

II.    Savage  Organization 6 

TYPE  II  — PATRIARCHAL  SOCIETY 

III.  Patriarchal  Society  in  General i6 

IV.  The  Domestication  of  Animals 23 

V.    Tribal  Organization 32 

VI.    Agriculture  and  the  Clan 44 

VII.    Industry  and  the  Gild 62 

TYPE  III  — MODERN  (POLITICAL)  SOCIETY 

VIII.    The  State  and  Feudalism 73 

IX.    Early  Political  Institutions 84 

X.    The  State  and  Property 97 

XI.   The  State  and  Justice 112 

(vii) 


vfii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XII.    The  State  and  Legislation 124 

XIII.  The  State  and  Administration 140 

XIV.  Varieties  of  Political  Society 151 

List  of  Authorities 165 

Index 167 

Glossary 173 


A  SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 


INCTRODUCTO  RY 

CHAPTER   I 

Types   of   Society 

Politics. — By  Politics  we  mean  the  business  of  Govern- 
ment: that  is  to  say,  the  control  and  management  of  people 
living  together  in  a  society.  A  socie^,  again,  is  a  group  or 
mass  of  people,  bound  together  by  a  certain  common  priu' 
ciple  or  object.  A  mere  chance  crowd  is  not  a  society ;  it 
has  no  definite  object,  it  collects  and  disperses  at  the  whim 
of  the  moment,  its  members  recognize  no  duties  toward  one 
another.     It  has  no  history,  no  organization. 

Society. — Societies  are  of  many  kinds.  They  may  exist 
for  purposes  of  religion,  commercial  profit,  amusement, 
education,  or  a  host  of  other  objects.  A  good  specimen  of 
a  religious  society  is,  of  course,  an  ordinary  church  congre- 
gation, or  a  missionary  society ;  of  a  commercial  society, 
an  ordinary  trading  company ;  of  an  amusement  society,  a 
West-end  club ;  of  an  educational  society,  an  university  or 
a  college.  And  the  management  and  organization  of  any 
such  society  may  in  strictness  be  considered  a  branch  of 
Politics.  But  it  is  convenient  to  reserve  the  term  politics 
for  matters  concerning  one  particular  and  very  important 
class  of  societies,  those  communities,  namely,  which  are  not 
formed  for  any  special  or  limited  objects,  but  which  have 

(I) 


2  A    SHORT   HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

grown  up,  almost  spontaneously,  as  part  of  the  general  his- 
tory of  mankind,  and  which  are  concerned  with  its  general 
interests.  Men,  as  a  rule,  live  in  these  communities,  not 
because  they  choose  to  do  so,  but  because  they  are  bom 
into  them  ;  and  until  quite  recently,  they  were  not  allowed 
to  change  them  at  their  pleasure.  In  their  most  advanced 
forms,  we  call  these  communities  States ;  Great  Britain, 
France,  Holland,  Germany,  Spain,  Russia,  etc. ,  are  undoubt- 
edly States.  And  these  States  are  the  proper  subject  matter 
of  Politics,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term.  But,  as  we 
study  their  history,  we  become  aware  that  these  communi- 
ties have  gradually  developed  out  of  societies  of  quite 
another  type,  organized  on  different  principles. 

ModePM  social  groups. —  Now-a-days,  the  principle 
which  binds  together  these  communities  of  the  modern 
type  is  the  tie  of  military  allegiance.  In  the  States  which 
practice  conscription,  or  universal  military  service,  this  is 
very  obvious.  The  most  heinous  political  offence  which 
a  Frenchman  or  a  German  can  commit  is  attempting  to 
evade  military  service  ;  or,  possibly  worse,  taking  part  in 
military  service  against  his  own  country.  But  even  in  Great 
Britain,  where  conscription  is  not  practised,  the  tie  is  really 
the  same.  It  is  unquestionable  that  the  Queen,  through  her 
Ministers,  has  the  right,  in  case  of  necessity,  to  call  upon 
everyone  of  her  male  subjects  to  render  personal  military 
service ;  and  any  British  subject  captured  fighting  against 
his  country  would  be  liable  to  suffer  death  as  a  traitor.  In 
the  older  conditions  of  society,  however,  to  which  allusion 
has  been  made,  the  tie  was  not  that  of  military  allegiance, 
but  kinship,  which  was  at  first,  no  doubt,  based  on  actual 
blood  relationship,  but  was  afterwards  extended  by  fictitious 
methods.  To  men  living  in  such  a  community,  the  inclusion 
of  strangers  in  blood  would  have  appeared  a  monstrosity. 
The  mere  facts  that  these  strangers  were  settled  in  the  same 
neighbourhood,  or  carried  on  trade  with  the  community  in 
question,  or    even  were  willing  to  fi?ht  its  battles,  would 


TYPES   OF   SOCIETY  3 

have  seemed  to  such  a  community  no  arguments  at  all  for 
admitting  them  to  membership.  The  most  conspicuous 
example  in  the  world  of  a  community  organized  on  such 
principles  is,  of  course,  the  Jews,  who,  in  spite  of  their  world- 
wide dispersal,  still  maintain  intact  their  tribal  organization, 
at  least  in  theory.  The  same  ideas  were  at  the  bottom  of 
the  famous  struggle  in  early  Roman  history  between  the 
patricians  *  and  the  plebeians;  and  it  is  possible  that  some- 
thing of  the  same  kind  may  be  unconsciously  at  the  root  of 
the  trouble  between  the  Boers  and  the  Uitlanders  in  the 
Transvaal.  The  Welsh  and  the  Irish  before  the  Norman 
Conquest,  the  Scottish  Highlanders  two  or  three  centuries 
ago,  undoubtedly  lived  in  communites  of  this  type,  which 
we  may  call  patriarchal,  or  tribal. 

Still  older  groups. — Until  quite  recently  it  was  be- 
lieved that  this  patriarchal  type  was  the  oldest  type  of 
human  community.  Speculators  on  the  history  of  society 
started  from  the  patriarchal  household,  and  worked  down- 
wards to  the  modem  State.  But  the  brilliant  discoveries  of 
the  last  half  century  have  revealed  to  us  a  still  more  primi- 
tive type  of  society  which,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  has 
never  been  described  in  a  popular  book,  and  which  it  takes 
some  considerable  effort  to  realize,  even  when  it  is  stated  in 
the  simplest  language.  It  is  intensely  interesting,  both  as 
adding  another  whole  province  to  the  domain  of  scientific 
history,  and  as  revealing  another  step  in  the  path  by  which 
man  has  moved  onward  and  upward.  At  present  too  little 
is  known  of  its  details  to  warrant  more  than  a  brief  descrip- 
tion ;  but,  thanks  to  the  labours  of  devoted  students,  who 
have  faced  discomfort  and  hardship  in  order  to  examine 
this  type  of  society  in  its  few  surviving  examples,  the  out- 
lines are  now  fairly  clear.  Unfortunately,  it  is  hard  to  find  a 
good  name  by  which  it  may  be  distinguished.  Its  scientific 
name  of  Totemistic  is  too  elaborate  and  technical  for  popu- 


*  A  "  patrician  "  is  one  who  has  a  "  pater,"  or  chief  of  kindred. 


4  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

lar  use.  Perliaps  it  will  be  best  to  call  it  the  savage  type  ; 
though  it  must  be  clearly  understood  that  the  term  implies 
neither  contempt  nor  Jslame.  It  merely  signifies  that  the 
type  in  question  is  \ (try  primitive  or  rudimentary. 

Here,  then,  we  have  our  three  historical  types  of  human 
society  —  the  savage,  the  patriarchal,  and  the  military  (or 
"political"  in  the  modern  sense).  And  it  will  be  the 
business  of  "  A  Short  History  of  Politics  "  to  describe  each  of 
them  in  turn,  beginning  with  the  oldest,  and,  if  possible,  to 
point  out  the  causes  which  led  societies  to  abandon  the 
older  for  the  newer  types.  To  do  this,  we  shall  not  require 
to  describe  the  histories  of  particular  societies  ;  that  will  be 
the  task  of  other  writers  in  the  Series.  But  we  shall  en- 
deavour to  trace  a  normal  course  for  the  development  of 
societies,  a  course  which  every  community  tends  to  follow, 
unless  deflected  from  its  natural  path  by  special  circum- 
stances. It  is  the  fashion  to  scoff  at  such  attempts,  and, 
doubtless,  there  is  a  danger  in  "general  views."  But  there 
is,  likewise,  a  danger  in  specialization;  and  a  man  who  uses 
the  microscope  only  loses  the  treasures  revealed  by  the 
telescope.  It  is  a  wase  ideal  of  study:  to  know  something 
of  everything,  and  everything  of  something. 

OUP  plan. — But,  if  we  start  on  a  story  of  this  kind,  it  is 
quite  evident  that  we  must  have  something  in  the  nature  of  a 
plan.  To  plunge  recklessly  into  the  facts  of  universal  his- 
tory would  be  to  invite  failure.  To  what  pathway  shall  we 
trust  to  bring  us  safely  out  of  the  forest  ? 

Institutions. — There  is  a  large  part  of  the  history  of 
every  community  which  seems  to  leave  no  permanent  traces 
upon  it.  No  doubt  the  results  are  there  ;  but  they  are  too 
vague  and  too  subtle  to  be  easily  described.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  effects  of  other  parts  of  the  community's  history 
are  plainly  discernible  in  the  permanent  and  visible  results 
which  they  leave  on  the  community  itself.  These  results  we 
call  institutions :  i.  e.,  the  machinery  by  which  the  business 
of  the  community  is  carried  on.     Perhaps  it  would  be  better 


TYPES    OF    SOCIETY  5 

to  call  them  limbs  or  orgatts  of  the  community,  for  they 
resemble  natural  growths  far  more  than  artificial  creations. 
They  correspond  in  the  body  social  with  the  litnbs  or  organs 
of  the  body  natural:  i.  e.,  with  those  instruments  by  which 
the  business  of  the  body  —  its  absorption,  digestion,  de- 
fence, attack,  etc.,  are  carried  on.  And  so  we  use  the  meta- 
phor organization,  to  describe  the  development  of  institu- 
tions in  the  body  social,  or  community. 

Theip  relative  importance. — These  institutions  may 
not  really  be  the  most  important  part  of  the  body  social,  any 
more  than  the  limbs  and  organs  are  the  most  important 
part  of  the  body  natural.  The  really  important  thing  in 
each  is  that  indefinable  existence  which  we  call  life.  But  as 
no  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  explaining  what  life  is,  even  in 
the  natural  body,  still  less  in  the  social  body,  we  shall  be 
wiser  to  describe  the  institutions  of  society,  to  show,  if  we 
can,  how  they  appeared,  grew,  and  gradually  changed,  till 
they  assumed  the  shape  in  which  we  know  them  now.  Only, 
as  every  fully  developed  society  has  many  kinds  of  institu- 
tions, political,  industrial,  religious,  educational,  and  so  on, 
with  all  of  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  deal,  we  must 
remember  that  this  is  a  book  on  politics,  and  deals  only,  or 
chiefly,  with  those  institutions  which  are  concerned  directly 
with  the  business  of  government. 

This,  then,  will  be  the  plan  of  our  work  :  to  describe,  as 
briefly  and  clearly  as  possible,  the  origin  and  development 
of  the  institutions  of  government. 


Type  I — Savage  Society 

CHAPTER  II 

Savage  Organization 

Savagres. — in  spite  of  the  constantly  increasing  inter- 
course between  the  most  remote  parts  of  the  world,  and  the 
civilizing  influences  of  commerce,  there  remain  quite  a  con- 
siderable number  of  peoples  who  still  live  under  primitive 
or  savage  conditions.  Among  them  may  be  reckoned  the 
Andamanese  of  the  Bay  of  Bengal,  the  hill  tribes  of  Madras, 
the  Juangs  of  Orissa,  the  Veddahs  of  Ceylon,  the  Bushmen 
and  Akkas  of  Africa,  the  Colorado  Indians  of  North 
America,  the  Caribs  of  the  centre  and  the  Brazilians  of 
the  south,  the  Dyaks  of  Borneo,  and  the  Eskimos  of  Green- 
land and  Labrador.  The  Tasmanians  of  Van  Diemen's 
Land  were,  until  their  recent  extinction,  perfect  specimens 
of  unadulterated  savagery.  But  by  far  the  most  important 
examples,  because  the  most  remote  from  admixture  and  the 
most  scientifically  and  recently  studied,  are  the  aborigines* 
of  Australia,  who,  in  the  centre  and  north  of  that  vast  con- 
tinent, still  roam  untouched  and  unreclaimed.  Their  num- 
bers are  considerable,  and,  though  they  are  probably  des- 
tined to  disappear  at  no  distant  date,  they  are  at  present  in 
full  possession  of  their  primitive  organization,  Owing  to 
the  praiseworthy  efforts  of  a  generation  of  students,  promi- 


*The  reader  is  cautioned  that  the  term  "Australian  Native"  is  by 
local  custom  reserved  for  the  descendants  of  the  white  colonists,  and  is 
rarely  extended  to  the  "  blackfellow." 

(6) 


SAVAGE   ORGANIZATION  7 

nent  among  them  being  Mr.  A.  W.  Howitt,  the  Rev.  Lorimer 
Fison,  Professor  Baldwin  Spencer  and  Mr.  Gillen,  who  have 
braved  the  hardships  of  the  AustraHan  desert,  and  won  their 
way  into  the  confidence  of  the  savages  by  consistent  kind- 
ness, we  are  now  able  to  form  some  tolerably  correct  ideas 
of  savage  life.  Their  accounts  may  be  profitably  supplemented 
by  the  studies  of  the  late  Mr.  Lewis  Morgan,  who,  in  the  Red 
Indians  of  America,  found  a  people  just  emerging  from  sav- 
agery into  the  patriarchal  stage  of  society,  and  whose  book 
on  "Ancient  Society  "  will  ultimately  be  recognized  as  one 
of  the  great  scientific  products  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Savagre  life. —  The  material  side  of  Australian  existence 
may  be  best  described  in  a  series  of  negatives.  The  savages 
understand  neither  the  cultivation  of  the  land  nor  the  rearing 
of  sheep  and  cattle,  'nrerr  only  domestic  animal  (if  "  domes- 
tic "  it  can  be  called)  is  the  dog.  They  have  no  idea  of  dwel- 
lings more  advanced  than  a  rude  bough  hut ;  for  the  most  part 
they  take  shelter  in  caves,  and  behind  pieces  of  bark  propped 
up  against  trees  or  rocks.  They  have  no  food  but  the  scanty 
game  of  the  "bush  "  or  forest,  such  as  the  wallaby  and  the 
opossum,  and  the  natural  products  of  the  earth.  The  art  of 
fire-making,  in  a  very  primitive  form,  is  known  to  them  ;  but 
their  notions  of  cooking  are  of  the  crudest.  Still  less  have 
they  the  knowledge  of  working  in  metals,  either  by  hammer- 
ing or  by  melting.  The  recently  adopted  iron  tomahawk  is 
an  article  of  barter,  obtained  from  the  enterprising  traveller, 
in  exchange  for  natural  products.  The  indigenous  weapons 
are  the  flint-headed  spear  and  axe,  and  the  wooden  boom- 
erang or  throwing-stick.  Australian  legends  go  back  to  a 
time  when  even  the  use  of  stone  knives  was  unknown,  and 
operations,  even  on  the  human  body,  were  performed  with  a 
charred  stick.  The  "pitchi,"  or  bark-basket,  and  the  dig- 
ging-stick of  the  women  appear  to  be  almost  the  only  articles 
which  can  be  classed  as  "tools."  The  clothing  of  the 
Australians  may  be  described  as  purely  ornamental.  It 
consists,  in  fact,  of  certain  decorations  used  in  religious 


8  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

ceremonies  ;  in  ordinary'  life  they  are  stark  naked.  The 
appalHng  feature  of  this  miserable  existence,  always  border- 
ing on  starvation,  is  that  it  seems  to  have  gone  on  during 
countless  ages.  The  fauna  and  flora  of  Australia  are,  it  is 
well  known,  of  a  thoroughly  archaic  type  ;  the  naturalist 
discovers  in  its  forests  and  rivers  forms  which  have  long 
since  been  extinct  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  And  as  there 
is  no  evidence  whatever  of  any  intercourse  between  Australia 
and  other  lands  during  the  period  of  recorded  history,  as,  in 
fact,  Australia  was,  until  three  centuries  ago,  an  unknown 
land,  we  can  only  suppose  that  the  Australian  has  led  his 
present  life  during  thousands  of  years.  His  isolation  has 
been,  no  doubt, 'the  chief  cause  of  his  stagnation. 

Savage  institutions. —  This  view  is  entirely  confirmed 
by  a  study  of  the  non-material  side  of  Australian  life.  Crude 
and  primitive  as  it  seems  to  us,  its  elaborateness  of  detail 
and  complexity  of  ceremonial  point  to  a  history  of  great,  but 
unrecorded,  antiquity.  When  we  consider  the  terror  which 
all  novelty  has  for  the  savage,  especially  in  religious  matters, 
we  are  bound  to  think  that  the  elaborate  ceremonies  described 
in  Messrs.  Spencer's  and  Gillen's  valuable  book  *  must  have 
taken  centuries,  perhaps  even  thousands  of  years,  to  work 
out.  We  may  be  very  sure  that  no  sudden  change  was  made  ; 
but  that  only  little  by  little  was  the  elaborate  ceremonial  in- 
troduced. We  cannot  here  do  more  than  describe  its  leading 
features. 

"Tribe"  op  "pack." — It  is  the  custom  to  speak  of 
the  Australians  and  other  savages  as  living  in  "tribes." 
But  the  term  is  most  misleading;  for  the  word  "tribe" 
always  suggests  to  us  the  notion  of  descent  from  a  common 
ancestor,  or,  at  any  rate,  of  close  blood  relationship.  Now 
there  is,  as  we  shall  see,  a  most  important  stage  in  human 
progress,  in  which  descent  from  a  common  ancestor  plays  a 
vital  part  in  social  organization.    But  the  Australian  "tribe " 


♦"The  Native  Tribes  of  Central  Australia."    London,  1899. 


SAVAGE   ORGANIZATION  9 

does  not  really  play  a  very  important  part  in  savage  life,  at 
least  on  its  social  side.  It  appears  to  be  mainly  a  group  of 
people  engaged  in  hunting  together,  a  cooperative  or  com- 
munal society  for  the  acquisition  of  food  supply.  It  would 
really  be  better  to  call  it  the  "pack;"  for  it  far  more 
resembles  a  hunting  than  a  social  organization.  All  its 
members  are  entitled  to  a  share  in  the  proceeds  of  the  day's 
chase,  and,  quite  naturally,  they  camp  and  live  together. 
But  they  are  not  sharply  divided,  for  other  purposes,  from 
other  "packs"  living  in  the  neighbourhood.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  frequently  mingle  with  them  ;  and  a  social  free- 
masonry extends  over  vast  areas  of  the  continent. 

Totem  group.— The  real  social  unit  of  the  Australians 
is  not  the  "tribe,"  but  the  totem  group.  The  word  ^"^  totem'''' 
is  not,  of  course,  Australian  ;*  but  it  is  generally  accepted  as 
the  name  of  an  institution  which  is  found  almost  universally 
among  savages.  The  totem  group  is,  primarily,  a  body  of 
persons,  distinguished  by  the  sign  of  some  natural  object, 
such  as  an  animal  or  tree,  who  may  not  intermarry  with  one 
another.  In  many  cases,  membership  of  the  totem  group 
is  settled  by  certain  rules  of  inheritance,  generally  through 
females.  But  among  the  Australians,  new-born  or  (in  some 
cases)  unborn  infants  are  allotted  by  the  wise  men  to  partic- 
ular totems  ;  and  this  arrangement  has  all  the  appearance  of 
extreme  antiquity,  for  the  savage  has  no  idea  of  principles  ; 
he  requires  hard  and  fast  rules. 

No  mappiage  within  the  totem.— The  Australian  may 
not  marry  within  his  totem.  "Snake  may  not  marry  snake. 
Emu  may  not  marry  emu. ' '  That  is  the  first  rule  of  savage 
social  organization.  Of  its  origin  we  have  no  knowledge  ; 
but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  its  object  was  to  prevent 
the  marriage  of  near  relations.  Though  the  savage  cannot 
argue  on  principles,  he  is  capable  of  observing  facts.     And 


*It  sems  to  have  been  first  used,  in  a  slightly  different  form,  by  the 
Ojibway  Indians  of  North  America. 


lO  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

the  evils  of  close  inbreeding  must,  one  would  think,  have 
ultimately  forced  themselves  upon  his  notice  If  so,  we  can 
understand  the  rule,  "Snake  may  not  marry  snake."  But 
this  is  conjecture. 

Marriage  with  another  totem.— The  other  side  of 
the  rule  is  equally  startling.  The  savage  may  not  marry 
within  his  totem,  but  he  must  marry  into  another  totem 
specially  fixed  for  him.  More  than  this,  he  not  only  marries 
into  the  specified  totem,  but  he  marries  the  whole  of  the 
women  of  that  totem  in  his  own  generation.  Thus,  all  the 
men  of  the  Snake  totem  are  husbands  of  all  the  women  of 
the  Emu  totem  in  the  same  generation ;  and,  as  a  natural 
consequence,  all  the  women  of  Snake  totem  are  wives  of  all 
the  men  of  Emu  totem.  Of  course,  it  must  not  be  supposed, 
that  this  condition  of  marital  community  really  exists  in  prac- 
tice. As  a  matter  of  fact,  each  Australian  contents  himself 
with  one  or  two  women  from  his  marriage  totem.  But  it  is  a 
fact  that  an  Australian  would  see  nothing  wrong  in  a  man 
living  as  the  husband  of  any  woman  of  his  marriage  totem, 
provided  she  were  of  his  own  generation.  And  if  an  Au- 
stralian is  travelling  from  "tribe"  to  "tribe,"  he  will,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  find  a  wife  waiting  for  him  in  every  "tribe  " 
which  contains  women  of  his  marriage  totem.  It  is  facts  such 
as  these  which  scandalized  early  missionaries,  and  often 
caused  them  to  shut  their  eyes  to  what  was  really  a  most 
valuable  object  lesson  in  social  history. 

No  unmarried  people. —  It  will  be  obvious  that,  under 
these  arrangements,  there  are  no  bachelors  or  spinsters 
among  the  Australian  savages ;  but  that,  as  Mr.  Fison  has 
well  observed,  marriage  is,  among  them,  "a  natural  state 
into  which  both  parties  are  bom." 

Different  generations.  —  It  has  been  hinted  before 
that  some  classification  is  necessary  to  distinguish  the  different 
degrees  or  generations  within  the  totem  group ;  and  this  is 
one  of  the  objects  of  the  mysterious  corroborees,  or  cere- 
monial gatherings,  which  play  so  large  a  part  in  the  life  of 


SAVAGE   ORGANIZATION  II 

the  savage.  Though  it  is  extremely  difficult,  owing  to  the 
unwillingness  of  savages  to  reveal  the  secrets  of  their  rites, 
to  ascertain  precisely  the  details  of  these  ceremonies,  it  is 
fairly  clear  that  they  serve  more  than  one  object.  In  the 
first  place,  as  was  frankly  admitted  by  an  Australian  mystery 
man  of  repute,  they  effect  the  useful  result  of  impressing  the 
ordinary  members  of  the  totem  group  with  a  sense  of  the 
importance  and  power  of  the  ' '  Birraark ' '  or  sorcerers, 
usually  old  men,  who  conduct  them.  In  the  second,  they 
undoubtedly  seem  to  keep  alive  the  legendary  history  of  the 
totem  group,  and  thus  to  bind  its  members  closer  together. 
The  songs  and  dances  of  the  ceremonies  in  many  cases  are 
supposed  to  represent  great  events  which  have  occurred  in 
the  "  Alcheringa,"  or  distant  past.  Finally,  at  the  cere- 
monies, often  lasting  for  several  days,  the  youths  and 
maidens  who  have  attained  to  maturity  are  initiated  into 
some  of  the  mysteries  of  the  totem,  often  to  the  accompani- 
ment of  painful  rites,  such  as  circumcision  and  other  lacera- 
tion. It  is  possible  that,  on  such  occasions,  the  initiated 
are  subjected  to  tattooing,  with  a  view  of  establishing  their 
identity,  and  of  allotting  them  to  a  certain  totem,  and  to  a 
certain  generation  within  that  totem. 

System  of  relationship.  — By  this,  or  some  other 
artificial  means,  the  curiously  simple  system  of  Australian 
relationship  is  constructed.  All  the  women  of  his  marriage 
totem  in  his  generation  are  a  man's  wives  ;  all  their  children 
are  his  children  ;  all  the  members  of  his  totem  in  the  same 
generation  are  his  brothers  and  sisters  (whom  he  may  not 
marry) ;  all  the  members  of  his  mother's  totem  are  his  parents 
(for  descent  is  nearly  always  reckoned  through  females). 
Parent,  child,  brother  and  sister  are  thus  the  only  relation- 
ships recognized.  Rudimentary  as  this  system  appears  to  be, 
it  is  widely  spread  throughout  the  Malay  archipelago,  and  Mr. 
Fison  tells  an  amusing  story  of  a  missionary  who,  to  increase 
his  familiarity  with  his  native  converts,  was  made  by  the  pro- 
cess of  adoption  the  brother  of  his  man-servant.     Happening 


12  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

to  meet  the  man's  wife,  the  missionary  pleasantly  explained 
that  he  was  now  her  brother.  Whereupon  the  lady  instantly 
corrected  him  by  saying,  ' '  Oh  no,  you  are  not  my  brother, 
you  are  my  husband."  Mr.  Morgan,  indeed,  who  has  studied 
the  natives  of  Hawaii  and  Honolulu,  as  well  as  his  own  Red 
Indians,  thinks  that  there  are  traces  of  still  older  systems,  in 
which  marriage  between  brothers  and  sisters,  and  even 
between  lineal  relations,  was  practised.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
the  Australian  system  prevails  widely  among  savages,  and 
even,  with  certain  modifications,  among  some  highly  civilized 
people,  e.  g.,  the  Chinese. 

Totem  questions. —  Whether  the  totem  serves  any 
other  purpose  than  that  of  prohibiting  intermarriage  of  near 
relations,  and  what  is  the  precise  connection  which  the 
sav^ages  believe  to  exist  between  themselves  and  their  totems, 
are  much  disputed  questions.  With  regard  to  the  latter,  it 
has  been  suggested  by  recent  observers  that  the  Australian 
believes  himself  to  be,  in  some  mysterious  way,  the  offspring 
of  his  totem.  There  can  also  be  little  doubt  that,  in  some 
cases  at  least,  the  totem  is  an  object  of  worship,  a  fetich 
which  will  deal  destruction  if  the  rule  of  the  intermarriage  is 
not  rigidly  observed.  And,  if  this  be  so,  we  get  an  interest- 
ing glimpse  at  the  rudiments  of  two  of  the  most  powerful 
factors  in  human  progress — Religion  and  Law.  It  has  been 
said  that  the  progress  of  religious  ideas  follows  three  stages. 
In  the  first,  Man  worships  some  object  entirely  external  to 
himself,  a  stone  or  an  animal.  In  the  second,  he  worships  a 
human  being  like  himself,  usually  one  of  his  own  ancestors. 
In  the  third,  he  has  risen  to  the  idea  of  a  God  who  is  both 
divine  and  human,  unlike  and  distinct  from  himself,  and  yet 
like  to  and  connected  with  himself.  The  Australian  totem 
would  answer  to  the  first  of  these  three  stages.  But  it  is 
somewhat  significant  to  notice  that  the  savage's  view  of  his 
deity  is  usually  that  of  a  malevolent  Power,  dealing  disease 
and  death,  and  thirsting  for  human  blood.  It  is  to  be  feared 
that  this  view  is  largely  the  reflection  of  the  savage's  only 


SAVAGE   ORGANIZATION  13 

means  of  reasoning  ;  viz. ,  by  experience.  He  sees  that  any 
one  of  his  fellows  who  happens  to  be  exceptionally  strong 
and  clever  is  apt  to  show  his  power  by  the  exercise  of 
crueltj'.     He  transfers  this  character  to  his  god. 

Savage  Law. — Closely  connected  with  this  view  is  the 
savage's  rudimentary  notion  of  Law.  With  him  it  is  a 
purely  negative  idea,  a  list  of  things  which  are  prohibited,  or 
taboo.  The  origin  of  these  prohibitions  is  often  ludicrous, 
but  they  are  generally  found  to  be  connected  with  the  appre- 
hension of  danger.  A  man  is  walking  along  a  path,  and  is 
struck  by  a  falling  branch.  Instead  of  attributing  the  blow 
to  natural  causes,  he  assumes  it  to  be  the  result  of  the  anger 
of  the  Tree-Spirit,  offended  by  his  action  in  using  the  path. 
In  the  future,  that  path  is  taboo,  or  forbidden.  A  rude  log 
bridge  is  made  over  a  stream.  It  gives  way  beneath  a 
passenger,  and  the  man  is  drowned.  That  (the  savage 
thinks)  is  the  vengeance  of  the  Water-Spirit,  incensed  at  the 
insult  ofifered  by  the  existence  of  the  bridge,  which  deprives 
him  of  his  due  number  of  victims.  But  the  convenience  of 
the  bridge  is  so  great  that  men  are  tempted  to  build  it  again. 
And  then  a  cunning  man  suggests  that,  if  a  victim  be 
sacrificed  before  the  bridge  is  used,  the  Water-Spirit  will 
be  satisfied.  And  so  some  poor  wretch  is  bound  hand  and 
foot  and  thrown  into  the  torrent.  Probably  the  bridge  is 
better  built  this  time,  and  does  not  break.  The  charm  has 
worked.  In  such  a  way  arises  the  notion  of  sacrifice,  whicn 
has  played  such  a  ghastly  part  in  history.  Jacob  Grimm, 
the  great  German  scholar,  found  the  practice  of  bridge 
sacrifices  in  use  in  northeastern  Germany,  happily  only  in  a 
mock  form,  as  late  as  the  beginning  of  the  present  century. 
The  practice  of  bur>'ing  alive  a  victim  in  the  foundations  of 
a  house,  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  Earth-Spirit,  whose  domain  is 
being  invaded,  is  widely  spread  in  savage  countries.  Doubt- 
less it  had  a  similar  origin. 

Whether  the  totem  bond  also  serves  the  purpose  of  unit- 
ing its  members  together  for  offence  and  defence,  is  also  a 


14  A   SHORT   HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

disputed  question.  There  are  traces  of  such  a  state  of 
things,  and  its  existence  would  certainly  explain  the  develop- 
ment of  a  conspicuous  feature  of  the  second  or  patriarchal 
stage  of  society,  the  blood-feud  group.  But  the  relations  of 
one  group  of  savages  to  another  are  obscure  and  uncertain. 
Doubtless  the  members  of  a  group,  whether  it  be  the 
"tribe"  or  hunting  unit,  or  the  totemistic  marriage  group, 
do  not  recognize  any  duties  towards  strangers.  But  their 
actual  attitude  is  probably  determined  by  the  state  of  the 
food  supply  and  the  amount  of  elbow-room.  If  game  is 
abundant,  and  hunting-grounds  large  in  proportion  to  the 
population,  distinct  groups  of  savages  may  exist  side  by  side 
in  a  given  area  without  conflict.  But  if  game  is  scarce,  and 
the  land  thickly  peopled  (in  the  savage  state  the  two  things 
would  probably  go  together),  wars  and  murders  are,  prob- 
ably, frequent.  Even  the  revolting  practice  of  cannibalism 
probably  originated  in  hunger  ;  though  there  are  some  races 
which  seem  unable  to  abandon  it,  even  in  times  of  plenty, 
and  plausible  reasons  are  invented  for  its  continuance.  But 
it  is  one  of  the  surest  laws  of  progress  that,  with  each  for- 
ward step,  the  same  area  is  able  to  maintain  an  ever- 
increasing  number  of  people.  And  so  the  temptations  for 
war,  or  at  least  the  excuses  for  war,  are  happily  ever 
diminishing. 

Summary. — It  is  a  somewhat  dark  picture  that  we  have 
had  to  draw  of  the  life  of  primitive  man.  And  indeed  the 
noble  savage,  who  passed  his  days  in  a  sort  of  perpetual 
picnic,  surrounded  by  his  family,  who  sported  in  the  flowery 
meads  while  he  discoursed  sweet  music,  was  a  last  century 
fiction  which  did  more  credit  to  the  hearts  than  to  the  heads 
of  an  unhistorical  generation.  The  actual  savage  is  usually 
a  miserable,  underfed  and  undersized  creature,  naked  and 
shivering,  houseless,  in  constant  terror  of  dangers  seen  and 
unseen,  with  no  family  ties  as  we  understand  them,  with  no 
certain  food  supply,  and  no  settled  abode.  And  yet  even 
the  savage  life  contributes  something  to  the  total  of  civiliza- 


SAVAGE   ORGANIZATION  15 

tion.  The  savage  hunter,  dependent  for  his  very  existence 
on  success  in  the  chase,  learns  to  endure  hardships  without 
murmuring,  in  the  pursuit  of  his  prey.  Constantly  on  the 
lookout  for  danger,  he  develops  powers  of  observation 
which  are  the  admiration  of  his  more  civilized  brother.  He 
can  trace  the  footsteps  of  an  enemy  in  a  thicket  where  a 
modern  detective  would  declare  it  impossible  to  read  any 
sign.  He  can  foretell  the  approach  of  a  storm  from  warn- 
ings which  would  escape  a  scientific  weather  prophet.  He 
can  hear  sounds  which  to  a  civilized  man  are  simply 
inaudible.  He  has  infinite  patience,  provided  only  that  the 
prospect  of  reward  is  palpable  and  immediate.  These  are 
no  mean  contributions  to  the  store  of  civilization. 


Type  II — Patriarchal  Society 

CHAPTER   III 
Patriarchal    Society  in   General 

Distinguishing  features.  —  We  now  approach  the 
consideration  of  the  second  stage  of  social  development, 
in  which  the  binding  ties  are  more  distinctly  marked,  and 
the  organization  more  perfect,  than  in  the  preceding  stage. 
All  patriarchal  society  is  characterized  by  certain  well- 
marked  features,  which  distinguish  it  from  earlier  as  well  as 
from  later  types  of  society.     These  features  are  : 

1.  Male  kinship. — We  saw  that,  in  the  savage  type  of 
community,  while  something  that  might  be  called  kinship 
prevailed,  it  was  so  arbitrary  and  artificial  that  it  might  be 
regarded  as  a  superstition  rather  than  a  fact.  So  far  as  there 
was  any  recognition  of  blood  relationship  at  all,  it  was  rela- 
tionship through  women,  not  through  men.  But,  in  the 
patriarchal  stage,  paternity  is  the  leading  fact.  Men  are 
counted  of  kin  because  they  are  descended  from  the  same 
male  ancestor.  Sometimes,  no  doubt,  the  relationship  is 
fictitious  rather  than  real ;  as  when  deficiencies  in  a  family 
are  made  up  by  adoption  or  fosterage.  But  the  very  exist- 
ence of  such  devices  shows  the  importance  attached  to 
descent  through  males.  Leaving  for  the  present  the  ques- 
tion of  how  this  important  change  came  about,  we  notice 
another  feature  of  patriarchal  society  closely  connected 
with  it. 

2.  Pepmanent  mappiage.— Without  such  an  addition, 

Cl6) 


PATRIARCHAL   SOCIETY   IN   GENERAL  17 

the  first  feature  could  hardly  develop.  In  a  state  of  society 
such  as  that  of  the  Australians  {ante,  p.  10),  no  one  could 
be  certain  who  his  father  was.  It  is  not  until  a  woman 
becomes  the  wife  of  one  man  only  that  anything  like  cer- 
tainty of  fatherhood  appears.  But  it  must  not  be  assumed 
that  marriage,  as  we  understand  it,  i.  e.,  permanent  union  of 
one  man  with  one  woman,  is  a  feature  of  all  patriarchal 
society.  On  the  other  hand,  polyg'a-my,  1.  e.,  the  marriage 
of  one  man  to  several  women,  is  very  characteristic  of 
patriarchal  society  in  its  earlier  stages.  Only  in  its  later 
developments  does  it  approach  to  the  modern  system  of 
marriage.  But  the  existence  of  polygamy  is  no  bar  to  the 
recognition  of  kinship  through  males  ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
renders  it  increasingly  certain,  by  providing  against  a 
superfluity  of  unmarried  women.  Finally,  a  third  essential 
feature  of  patriarchal  society  must  be  mentioned. 

3.  Paternal  authority. — The  principles  upon  which 
patriarchal  society  is  conducted  require,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
existence  of  groups  presided  over  and  controlled  by  the 
well-nigh  despotic  authority  of  a  male  ancestor.  This 
ancestor  controls  not  only  the  business  affairs  of  the  group, 
but  its  religion  and  its  conduct.  He  alone  is  responsible  for 
it  to  the  larger  group  of  which  it  forms  a  part.  The  pre- 
cise limits  of  this  authority  differ  in  different  stages.  In 
early  Rome,  as  is  well  known,  the  patria  potcstas  extended 
to  all  the  descendants  of  a  living  ancestor,  no  matter  how 
old  they  were,  and  even  survived,  in  a  modified  form,  over 
the  female  descendants  after  his  death.  Moreover,  it  com- 
prised even  the  power  of  life  and  death,  to  say  nothing  of 
control  and  chastisement.  In  later  forms  of  the  patriarchal 
system  this  power  becomes  greatly  modified,  but  an  inter- 
esting record  of  Welsh  society  at  the  end  of  the  patriarchal 
stage  says  of  the  Mab,  or  youth  under  fourteen  :  (He  is) 
"at  his  father's  platter,  and  his  father  lord  over  him,  and  he 
is  to  receive  no  punishment  but  that  of  his  father,  and  he  is 
not  to  possess  a  penny  of  his  property  during  that  time, 


l8  A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

only  in  common  with  his  father."     In  fact,  for  legal  pur- 
poses, he  has  no  sej^arate  existence. 

Actual  examples. — These  are  the  universal  features  of 
society  in  the  patriarchal  stage,  whether  we  look  at  it  among 
Jewish  tribes,  or  the  early  Greeks  (e.  g.,  the  Homeric 
heroes)  or  Romans,  or  among  the  Arabs  of  the  desert,  or 
the  Hindus  and  Mohammedans  of  northern  India,  or  the 
Afghans  of  the  frontier,  or,  better  still,  among  our  Teutonic 
forefathers  in  their  German  homes,  or,  perhaps  best  of  all, 
among  the  branches  of  the  Keltic  race,  the  Welsh,  the  Irish 
and  the  Highland  Scotch,  with  whom  it  lingered  until  a 
comparatively  late  period. 

Two  stages  of  patpiarehal  society.  —  But  the  study 
of  patriarchal  society  has,  until  quite  lately,  been  rendered 
very  difficult  by  the  practice,  adopted  by  writers  and 
speakers,  of  treating  all  patriarchal  society  as  though  it 
were  of  one  kind.  As  a  consequence,  the  picture  has  been 
confused,  inconsistencies  and  difficulties  have  arisen,  and 
impatient  critics  have  been  tempted  to  regard  the  patriarchal 
stage  of  society  as  an  ingenious  fiction. 

Tribal. — As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  patient  study  of  the 
evidence  soon  reveals  the  truth  that  patriarchal  society  falls 
into  two  subordinate  stages,  represented  by  two  different 
groups  or  social  units.  The  first  of  these  may  properly  be 
called  the  tribe,  the  second  the  cla7i  (or  sept).  The  former 
(the  tribe)  is  a  large  group,  consisting  of  several  hundred 
individuals,  the  fully  qualified  among  whom  certainly  believe 
themselves  to  be  descended  from  a  common  male  ancestor, 
and  are  certainly  bound  together  by  the  ties  of  kinship 
through  males.  But,  in  most  cases,  if  not  all,  the  common 
ancestor  of  the  tribe  is  a  fictitious  person,  invented  to 
satisfy  the  etiquette  which  has  now  come  to  regard  descent 
from  a  common  male  ancestor  as  the  only  true  basis  of 
society  ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  lawfully  bom  children 
of  all  male  members  of  the  tribe  are  entitled  to  be  classed  as 
tribesmen. 


PATRIARCHAL    SOCIETY   IN    GENERAL  19 

Clannish. — The  clan,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  much 
smaller  body,  consisting  of  some  three  or  four  generations 
only,  in  descent  from  a  perfectly  well-known  male  ancestor, 
and  breaking  up,  automatically,  into  new  clans  or  septs 
when  the  proper  limits  have  been  reached. 

Mistaken  (oldeP)  theory.  — This  distinction  has  been 
perceived  by  many  writers,  who,  however,  have  failed  to 
understand  its  true  significance,  and,  consequently,  its  value 
as  a  help  to  the  study  of  patriarchal  society.  They  have 
been  misled  by  the  old  theory,  now  definitely  exploded,  that 
the  beginnings  of  society  are  to  be  found  in  the  single  house- 
hold, or  group  of  descendants  of  a  living  man.  When  such 
a  house-father  died,  they  say,  his  sons  would  set  up  house- 
holds of  similar  pattern  for  themselves,  and  these  house- 
holds, remembering  their  relationship,  would  form  a  clan; 
when  the  clan  grew  so  big  that  its  actual  relationships  became 
obscure,  it  would  become  a  tribe.  To  the  Scottish  his- 
torian, Mr.  W.  F.  Skene,  may  be  attributed  the  merit  of 
having  shown,  by  actual  demonstration,  that  this  account 
really  reverses  the  historical  order  of  things.  The  tribe,  or 
larger  unit,  is  the  oldest ;  as  it  breaks  up,  clans  are  formed  ; 
and  the  break  up  of  the  clan  system  leaves  as  independent 
units  the  households  formerly  comprised  within  it.  Finally, 
but  not  till  long  after  patriarchal  society  has  passed  away, 
the  household  is  dissolved,  and  the  individual  becomes  the 
unit  of  society. 

Supported  by  evidence  of  savage  society.— This 
view,  put  forward  by  Mr.  Skene  in  his  "  Celtic  Scotland  " 
(vol.  iii),  has  been  strengthened,  in  the  most  remarkable  way, 
by  the  discoveries  concerning  the  nature  of  savage  society 
described  in  the  preceding  chapter.  By  these  discoveries  it 
has  been  proved  that  the  earliest  social  group,  so  far  from 
being  a  small  household  of  a  single  man  and  his  wives,  is  a 
large  and  loosely  connected  group  or  "pack,"  organized  for 
matrimonial  purposes  on  a  very  artificial  plan,  which  alto- 
gether precludes  the  existence  of  the  "single  family."    If  it 


20  A    SHORT    HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

were  necessar>',  it  could  easily  be  shown  that  the  origin  of 
society  in  "single  families"  is  inherently  impossible;  but  it 
is  sufficient  to  point  out  that  the  evidence  is  against  it. 

Origin  of  the  distinction. — Although,  however,  the 
author  acknowledges  his  debt  to  Mr.  Skene  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  true  relationship  between  the  tribe  and  the 
clan,  he  is  not  aware  that  the  causes  of  the  appearance  of 
either  have  been  stated  anywhere  in  brief  form.  He  thinks 
it  better,  therefore,  even  at  the  risk  of  anticipating  matters  a 
little,  to  state  clearly  his  own  view,  which  is  this  :  thai  the 
domestication  of  animals  converted  the  savage  pack  into  the 
patriarchal  tribe  ;  and  that  the  adoption  of  agriculture  broke 
up  the  tribe  into  clans. 

Distinguishing  marks  of  patpiapchal  society.— 
If  this  view  be  correct,  obviously  the  first  thing  to  do  in 
attempting  the  story  of  patriarchal  society  is  to  consider  the 
domestication  of  animals  and  its  immediate  results.  But,  as 
this  will  require  a  chapter  to  itself,  it  will  be  well  once  more 
to  emphasize  the  distinction  between  patriarchal  society,  and 
modern  or  political  society,  in  the  strict  sense,  in  order  that 
the  reader  may  realize  that  he  is  going  to  deal  with  ideas 
completely  foreign  to  his  own.  Patriarchal  society,  then, 
is  distinguished  from  modem  society  by  four  leading 
qualities. 

Personal  union.  —  i.  It  is  personal,  not  territorial. 
Although,  as  has  been  said,  the  basis  of  modern  society  is 
military  allegiance,  the  great  factor  which  determines  that 
allegiance  is  residence  in  a  fixed  area.  Doubtless,  for  cer- 
tain purposes,  a  citizen  of  State  A  may  reside  in  the  terri- 
tory of  State  B ;  yet  he  is  looked  upon  as  an  alien,  and  he 
takes  no  part  in  the  political  life  of  State  B.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  a  man  qualifies  as  a  citizen  of  a  State  by  residence, 
we  ask  no  questions  about  his  blood  or  race.  "Everyone 
born  in  France  is  a  Frenchman,"  says  the  Code  Napoleon  ; 
and,  broadly  speaking,  that  is  the  rule  in  civilized  countries 
at  the  present  day.    But  patriarchal  society  cares  nothing  for 


PATRIARCHAL   SOCIETY    IN    GENERAL  21 

residence  or  locality.  To  be  a  member  of  a  particular 
group,  a  man  must  be  of  the  blood  of  that  group.  If  he  is 
not,  he  may  pass  his  whole  life  in  its  service,  but  he  will  not 
be  a  member.  In  fact,  the  whole  group  itself  may  move  its 
quarters  at  any  time  without  affecting  its  constitution  in 
any  way.  At  least,  this  is  so  in  the  earlier  stages  of  patri- 
archal society. 

Exclusiveness.  —  2.  It  is  exclusive.  Modem  society 
believes  in  large  numbers.  In  spite  of  certain  grumblings 
about  "  immigrant  aliens,"  modern  States  are  really  anxious 
to  increase  their  numbers  as  much  as  possible,  because  they 
know  that  an  increase  of  numbers  means  an  increase  of 
wealth  and  of  fighting-power.  To  a  community  in  the 
patriarchal  stage,  an  Immigration  Bureau  would  appear  to 
be  a  monstrosity.  To  its  members  the  immigrant  is  simply 
a  thief,  who  comes  to  stint  the  pasture  and  the  corn  land  ;  a 
heathen,  who  will  introduce  strange  customs  and  worships. 
If  he  is  admitted,  he  is  admitted  only  as  a  serf  or  slave. 

Communal  eharaetep. — 3.  It  is  ccmtmunal.  In  a 
modern  State,  the  supreme  authority  deals  directly  with 
each  individual.  Of  course  there  are  intermediate  authori- 
ties, but  they  act  only  as  subordinates  or  delegates  of  the 
supreme  power,  which  can  set  them  aside.  But,  in  patri- 
archal society,  each  man  is  a  member  of  a  small  group, 
which  is  itself  a  member  of  a  larger  group,  and  so  on.  And 
each  man  is  responsible  only  to  the  head  of  his  immediate 
gi'oup  —  the  son,  wife  or  slave  to  the  housefather,  the  house- 
father to  the  head  of  his  clan,  the  head  of  the  clan  to  the 
tribal  chief.  The  practical  results  of  this  principle  are 
vitally  important,  as  we  shall  see  later  on. 

No  competition.  —  4.  It  is  non-competitive.  We  are 
accustomed  to  a  state  of  society  in  which  each  man  works 
at  what  he  thinks  best,  and  in  the  way  he  thinks  best.  Sub- 
ject to  certain  laws,  mostly  of  a  police  character,  each  man 
"does  as  he  likes."  If  a  farmer  thinks  he  can  get  a  better 
crop  by  sowing  earher  than  his  neighbours,  he  does  so.     If 


22  A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

a  carpenter  thinks  he  can  make  a  better  box  by  using  nails 
where  screws  have  hitherto  been  employed,  he  does  so.  If 
a  draper  thinks  he  can  attract  customers  by  selling  tea,  he 
does  so.  But  patriarchal  society  would  have  looked  on  such 
practices  with  horror.  Its  life  was  regulated  by  fixed  custom, 
to  deviate  from  which  was  impiety.  How  this  idea  arose, 
and  how  it  gradually  disappeared,  we  must  inquire  hereafter. 
At  present  we  must  simply  bear  it  in  mind  in  thinking  of 
patriarchal  society.  In  patriarchal  society,  everj'one  found 
his  duties  in  life  prescribed  for  him  ;  and  not  only  his  duties, 
but  the  way  in  which  he  should  perform  them.  Any  devia- 
tion from  customary  rules  was  looked  upon  with  disfavour. 

We  now  come  to  deal  with  the  great  discovery  which 
made  patriarchal  society  possible  and  inevitable. 


CHAPTER  IV 
The  Domestication  of  Animals 

The  art  of  taming  wild  animals  and  making  them  serve 
the  purposes  of  man  is  one  of  the  great  discoveries  of  the 
world.  Just  as  it  is  quite  certain  that  there  are  some  races, 
e.  g.,  the  Australians,  who  have  never  acquired  it,  so  it  is 
equally  certain  that  many  other  races  have  learnt  it,  with 
results  of  the  greatest  importance:  But  as  to  the  man  or 
men  who  introduced  it,  we  have  no  knowledge,  except 
through  vague  and  obviously  untrustworthy  tradition.  Like 
many  of  the  greatest  benefactors  of  the  human  race,  they 
remain  anonymous.  In  all  probability,  the  discovery  was 
made  independently  by  many  different  races,  under  combi- 
nations of  favourable  circumstances. 

Origin  of  domestication.  —  But,  if  we  cannot  speak 
with  confidence  of  names  and  dates  in  the  matter,  we  can 
make  certain  tolerably  shrewd  guesses  as  to  the  way  in 
which  domestication  of  animals  came  about.  We  start  with 
the  fact  that  the  most  valuable  of  the  world's  domestic 
animals,  the  sheep,  horse,  ox,  goat,  etc.,  are  known  to 
exist,  or  to  have  existed,  in  a  wild  state.  It  is  practically 
impossible  to  suppose  that  these  wild  animals  are  (except  in 
rare  cases)  the  result  of  the  escape  from  captivity  of  tame 
animals.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  start  which  a  pack  of 
savages  could  obtain  in  the  matter  of  domestication  would 
depend  upon  the  character  of  the  wild  animals  in  its  neigh- 
bourhood. For  it  is  fairly  obvious  by  this  time  that  many 
wild  animals  are  not  suitable  for  taming.     Thus,  it  is  hardly 

(23) 


24  A   SHORT   HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

possible  that  tlie  lion,  tiger  or  bear  will  ever  really  become 
domestic  animals,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  strength  and 
endurance  would  prove  valuable  qualities  if  they  could  be 
used.  And  so  some  peoples  may  have  remained  utterly 
savage,  because  of  the  fact  that  their  country  does  not  pro- 
duce animals  capable  of  domestication.  Again,  some  races, 
like  the  Eskimos,  appear  to  have  had  only  the  wild  ancestors 
of  the  dog  and  the  reindeer,  and  thus  to  have  been  very 
limited  in  their  opportunities.  Other  races  have  been  able 
to  tame  the  sheep,  one  of  the  most  valuable  aids  to  civiliza- 
tion ;  others,  again,  have  had  the  still  more  valuable  ox. 

Superfluity  of  game.—  But  still  the  question  remains 
—  How  was  the  process  of  domestication  discovered  ?  Here, 
again,  we  can  only  proceed  by  speculation  ;  but  a  most  valu- 
able account  of  his  experiences  in  Southern  Africa  (Damara 
Land),  published  by  the  late  Sir  Francis  Galton  in  the 
middle  of  the  century,  affords  us  most  suggestive  hints.* 

Two  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  savage  character 
are  recklessness  and  greed.  Being  quite  unable  to  make  pro- 
vision for  the  future,  or  even  to  realize  the  wants  of  the 
future,  the  savage  consumes  in  disgusting  orgies  the  produce 
of  a  successful  hunt.  A  stroke  of  luck,  such  as  the  capture 
of  a  big  herd  of  game,  simply  means  an  opportunity  for 
gorging.  But  even  the  savage  capacity  for  food  has  its 
limits  ;  and,  in  exceptionally  good  seasons,  there  is  a  super- 
fluity of  game.  A  civilized  man  would  strain  every  nerve 
to  store  the  surplus  away  against  future  wants.  The  savage 
simply  wastes  it ;  partly  because  he  knows  that  meat  will  not 
keep,  partly  because  he  cannot  realize  the  needs  of  the  future. 
The  "pemmican"  or  sun-dried  meat  of  the  Red  Indian, 
and  his  "caches,"  or  buried  hoards,  are  the  limits  of  the 
savage  capacity  for  storing  up  against  a  rainy  day. 

Pets. —  But,  if  the  savage  is  reckless  and  greedy,  he  is 
often  affectionate  and  playful.     If  he  has  had  as  much  food 


'  Narrative  of  an  Explorer  in  Tropical  South  Africa."   London,  1853 


THE   DOMESTICATION   OF   ANIMALS  25 

as  he  can  eat,  he  will  amuse  himself  by  playing  with  his 
captives,  instead  of  killing  them.  At  first,  no  doubt,  there 
is  a  good  deal  of  the  cat  and  the  mouse  in  the  relationship  ; 
but,  in  time,  the  savage  comes  positively  to  love  his  captives, 
and  even  to  resist  the  pangs  of  hunger  rather  than  kill  them. 
In  other  words,  the  earliest  domestic  animals  were  pets  ;  pre- 
served, not  with  a  view  of  profit)  but  for  sport  or  amuse- 
ment. And  it  is  most  important  to  observe  that  animals  so 
selected  would  naturally  be  the  handsomest  and  finest  of  the 
catch,  whose  appearance  would  delight  the  eye.  The  history 
of  the  process  is  neatly  summed  up  in  the  two  meanings  of 
the  English  verb  "to  Hke."  In  the  primitive  sense,  "to 
like"  means  "to  like  to  eat ; "  later  on,  it  means  "to  like 
to  keep,"  or  have  by  one.  "I  like  mutton,"  or,  "I  like 
my  dog."* 

Food  supply. —  But,  of  course,  feelings  of  affection 
would  be  bound  to  give  way  in  the  long  run  to  feelings  of 
hunger.  And  then  the  tame  animals  would  be  slaughtered 
for  food.  And  so  it  would  ultimately  dawn  on  the  savage 
that  the  keeping  of  pets  was  really  a  profitable  business, 
because  it  afforded  some  protection  against  /amine.  Gradu- 
ally it  would  become  more  and  more  common.  Finally,  the 
savage  would  learn  by  experience  that,  even  without  destroy- 
ing them,  his  pets  could  be  put  to  valuable  use.  Thus  the 
wool  of  sheep,  the  hair  of  goats,  the  milk  of  cows,  would 
be  to  a  savage  like  a  gift  from  an  unknown  Power.  Still 
more,  the  young  of  his  captives  would  add  to  his  delight  in 
his  possessions  ;  and  his  forest  lore,  his  keen  observation  of 
the  habits  of  animals  in  their  wild  condition,  would  come  in 
most  usefully  for  his  new  occupation  as  a  breeder  and  keeper 
of  flocks  and  herds.  But,  when  he  had  got  thus  far,  the 
savage  would  have  ceased  to  be  a  savage  ;  he  would  have 
become  a  pastoralist. 

*It  has  been  suggested  that  the  reverence  of  the  savage  for  his 
totem  may  also  have  had  something  to  do  with  the  preservation  o{ 
animals. 


26  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

Results  of  change. —  We  must  now  notice  the  chief 
effects  upon  social  arrangements  produced  by  the  adoption 
of  pastoral  pursuits. 

Kinship  through  males.— In  the  first  place,  it  is  not 
very  difficult  to  see  how  it  would  lead  to  the  establishment  of 
kinship  through  males.  In  the  savage,  or  hunting  stage,  the 
hunting  was  chiefly  done  by  the  men  ;  the  women,  though 
in  many  cases  they  took  part  in  the  chase,  being  employed 
chiefly  in  carrying  weapons,  setting  traps,  and  other  sub- 
ordinate offices.  Their  real  tasks  were  to  mind  camp,  dress 
the  food,  and,  what  has  always  and  inevitably  been  woman's 
work,  to  look  after  the  children.  Quite  naturally,  though 
not,  perhaps,  very  justly,  the  superfluous  animals  which  were 
left  over  after  the  hunger  of  the  camp  had  been  satisfied, 
were  looked  upon  as  connected  in  some  special  way  with  the 
man  who  had  captured  them.  And  he,  therefore,  would 
have  the  training  and  management  of  them  ;  and,  in  course 
of  time,  they  would  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  his  property. 
In  speculations  as  to  the  origin  of  the  important  institution  of 
property,  it  is  often  said  that  capture  is  the  first  title  to 
ownership.  This  is  hardly  true  ;  for  accounts  of  savage  so- 
cieties generally  show  that  the  captured  animals,  so  far  as 
they  are  required  for  food,  are  treated  as  the  common  stock 
of  the  camp.  But,  when  the  claims  of  hunger  have  been 
satisfied,  the  actual  captors  are  allowed  to  retain  the  re- 
mainder as  pets ;  and,  as  they  become  fonder  and  fonder  of 
them,  they  resent  more  and  more  any  interference  with  them 
by  other  people.  It  is  just  what  happens  with  children,  who 
are,  in  many  respects,  very  like  savages.  What  a  child 
thinks  of  is  not,  hoiu  the  toys  came  there,  but  who  uses  them. 
"I  always  play  with  this  doll,  so  it  is  mine."  That  is  the 
feeling  of  the  savage  for  his  ox  or  sheep. 

Pastoral  pupsuits.— And  then,  as  all  the  advantages  of 
the  rearing  of  animals  come  to  be  realized,  the  savage 
"pack"  gradually  changes  into  a  society  of  shepherds  or 
herdsmen,  in  which  the  men  are  engaged  in  tending  cattle, 


THE   DOMESTICATION   OF   ANIMALS  27 

sheep,  or  goats,  while  to  the  women  fall  the  subordinate 
offices  of  spinning  the  wool,  milking  the  cows  and  goats,  and 
making  the  butter  and  cheese.  The  men  drive  the  flocks  to 
pasture  and  water,  regulate  the  breeding,  guard  the  folds 
against  enemies,  decide  which  of  the  animals  shall  be  killed 
for  food,  and  break  in  the  beasts  of  burden. 

Value  of  labour.— But  in  these  tasks  it  gradually  be- 
comes apparent  to  the  men  that  labour  is  a  valuable  thing. 
A  man  who  has  been  very  successful  in  cattle-rearing  re- 
quires a  number  of  "hands"  to  keep  his  herds  in  order. 
Besides  the  domestic  labour  performed  by  women,  he 
requires  the  outdoor  labour  of  men,  to  prevent  the  cattle 
from  straying  or  being  stolen,  to  drive  them  to  pasture  in  the 
morning  and  bring  them  back  at  night.  To  this  demand  for 
labour  we  probably  owe  two  of  the  great  institutions  of  the 
pastoral  age  :  permanent  marriage  and  slavery.  There  is 
really,  as  we  shall  see,  nothing  out  of  place  in  taking  these 
two  together,  odd  as  the  connection  may  sound  to 
modem  ears. 

Permanent  maPFiage  has  been  alluded  to  before  as 
one  of  the  essential  features  of  patriarchal  society.  By 
superficial  writers  its  appearance  is  often  attributed  to  some 
vague  improvement  in  morality  or  taste.  Unhappily,  the 
facts  point  to  a  much  less  exalted  origin  ;  viz.,  the  desire  of 
the  man  to  secure  for  himself  exclusively  the  labour  of  the 
woman  and  her  offspring.  If  the  change  had  come  about 
from  exalted  ideas  of  morality,  we  should  probably  have 
found  two  features  in  the  new  system — (i)  equality  of  num- 
bers between  the  man  and  the  woman  ;  (2)  free  consent  to 
the  marriage  on  both  sides.  It  is  notorious  that  just  the  op- 
posite are  the  facts  of  the  patriarchal  system,  at  any  rate  at 
its  earlier  stages.  Polygamy,  or  plurality  of  wives,  is  the 
rule ;  and,  while  the  husband  is  not  at  all  particular  about 
the  conduct  of  his  wife  with  other  men,  he  is  intensely  strict 
about  appropriating  the  whole  of  her  labour ;  and  all  her 
offspring,  no  matter  who  is  the  real  father,  belong  to  him. 


a8  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

Again,  the  ancient  forms  of  marriage  ;  viz.,  marriage  by 
capture  and  marriage  by  purchase,  point  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  woman  had  little  or  no  voice  in  the 
matter.  In  the  case  of  marriage  by  capture,  the  husband 
carried  oflf  his  wife  by  force  from  a  neighbouring  tribe  ;  and, 
long  after  the  reality  of  this  practice  has  disappeared,  it  sur- 
vives, as  is  well  known,  in  a  fictitious  form  all  over  the 
world.  It  is  considered  barely  decent  for  the  girl  to  come  to 
the  marriage  without  a  show  of  force.  Even  in  polite 
modern  society  the  "best  man"  is  said  to  be  a  survival  of 
the  friends  who  went  with  the  bridegroom  in  ancient  days  to 
help  him  to  carry  off  his  bride,  while  the  bridesmaids  are  the 
lady's  companions,  who  attempted  to  defend  her  from  the 
audacious  robber,  and  the  wedding  tour  is  a  survival  of  the 
flight  from  the  angry  relatives  of  the  bride.  In  the  more 
peaceful  form  of  marriage  hy  purchase,  the  lady  has  become 
an  article  of  marketable  value,  whose  price  is  paid,  usually 
in  cattle  or  sheep,  to  her  relatives  or  owners.  It  is  a  refine- 
ment of  modern  days  that  the  "bride-price"  should  be 
settled  on  the  lady  herself,  or  contributed,  in  the  form  of 
marriage  gifts,  to  stock  the  future  home.  In  ancient  times 
it  was  paid,  if  not  in  hard  cash,  at  any  rate  in  solid  cattle,  to 
the  damsel's  relatives,  who,  by  the  marriage,  lost  the  value 
of  her  services.  Jacob,  we  know,  paid  for  his  wives  by 
labour  ;  but  this  was  probably  an  exception.  In  patriarchal 
society,  the  father  of  a  round  dozen  of  strong  and  well- 
favoured  daughters  is  a  rich  man. 

Slavery  arises  from  the  practice  of  keeping  alive  captives 
taken  in  war,  instead  of  putting  them  to  death.  In  savage 
days,  wars  are  usually  the  result  of  scarcity  of  food,  and,  as 
was  pointed  out  previously  (p.  14),  result  in  the  killing  and 
eating  of  members  of  a  stranger  "pack."  But,  with  the 
increasing  certainty  of  food  supply,  resulting  among  other 
benefits  from  pastoral  pursuits,  cannibalism  becomes  unnec- 
essary, and  captives  are  carefully  kept  alive,  in  order  that 
they  may  labour  for  their  captors.     It  may  sound  odd  to 


THE   DOMESTICATION   OF    ANIMALS  29 

speak  of  slavery  as  a  beneficent  institution,  but  one  of  the 
first  lessons  which  the  student  of  history  has  to  learn  is,  that 
things  which  to  us  now  seem  very  wicked  may  have  really 
been  at  one  time  improvements  on  something  much  worse. 
Slavery  is  an  ugly  thing,  but  it  is  better  than  cannibalism. 
Again,  however,  we  notice  that  the  upward  step  was  due, 
not  to  exalted  morality,  but  to  practical  convenience. 
Morality  is  the  result,  not  the  cause,  of  social  amelioration. 

The  pastoral  tribe.— Thus  we  have  seen  that  pastoral 
pursuits  have  converted  the  savage  "pack,"  with  its  loose 
system  of  association  and  marriage,  into  the  pastoral  tribe 
with  its  fixed  marriages  and  its  relationship  based  strictly  on 
kinship  through  males.  The  woman  leaves  her  own  tribe  or 
household,  and  becomes  a  member  of  that  of  her  husband. 
The  clumsy  expedients  of  capture  and  purchase  are  resorted 
to  in  order  to  continue  the  instinct,  developed  (as  we  have 
seen)  in  the  savage  period,  which  forbids  intermarriage  be- 
tween near  relations.  The  precise  distance  of  relationship 
required  probably  settles  whether  the  woman  is  to  be  cap- 
tured from  a  neighbouring  tribe  or  bought  from  another 
household  of  the  same  tribe.  And  this  rule  probably  varies 
according  to  circumstances.  But  in  either  case  the  husband 
is  the  sole  authority  in  the  household.  His  wives,  children, 
slaves  and  animals  are  under  his  absolute  control,  and  all 
stand  pretty  much  on  the  same  footing. 

Mode  of  transition. —  The  precise  steps  in  the  mo- 
mentous change  from  the  loose  marital  relationship  of  sav- 
ages to  the  definite  (if  somewhat  brutal)  institution  of  the 
pastoral  household  are  very  hard  to  trace.  The  process  has 
been  very  ingeniously  suggested  by  the  late  Mr.  Robertson 
Smith  in  his  "  Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia,''  where 
the  author  points  out  the  clear  traces  among  the  patriarchal 
Arabs  of  the  former  existence  of  a  savage  state  of  society. 
It  is  there  suggested  that  the  existence  of  a  long  condition 
of  war  and  disturbance  would  have  had  a  similar  result,  by 
drawing  together  the  fighting  males  into  groups  for  military 


30  A   SHORT   HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

purposes,  each  male  jealously  guarding;  his  own  women  and 
children.  But  there  are  inseparable  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
such  an  explanation.  The  patriarchal  household  would  have 
been  the  last  thing  that  a  warrior  would  have  cared  to  en- 
cumber himself  with  ;  and  times  of  military  license  are 
hardly  times  in  which  the  permanence  of  the  marriage  tie  is 
developed.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  tolerably  certain  that 
the  budding  institution  of  property  has  been  the  main  factor 
in  creating  the  patriarchal  tribe  and  family.  Our  very  word 
"family"  is  said  to  be  derived  from  an  old  Italian  word 
fainel,  meaning  "slave." 

Other  results  of  pastoral  pursuits.— To  conclude 
this  chapter,  we  may  just  hastily  mention  one  or  two  other 
important  contributions  made  to  the  progress  of  civilization 
by  the  domestication  of  animals.  Obviously  it  would  tend 
largely  to  increase  numbers  and  to  improve  physique,  by  the 
greater  abundance  and  regularity  of  food  supply  and  the  in- 
crease of  clothing  and  shelter.  But  also  it  would  have  the 
important  effect  of  differentiating  in  strength  and  impor- 
tance one  tribe  from  another,  and  one  family  from  another. 
Savages  are,  in  the  main,  very  much  alike  ;  one  savage  tribe 
is  a  good  deal  like  another.  But  circumstances  of  climate, 
and  skill  in  breeding  and  rearing  animals,  would  soon  pro- 
duce differences  in  the  pastoral  age.  One  tribe  would 
become  wealthy,  while  another  would  remain  poor.  Even 
in  the  same  tribe  some  households  would  become  richer 
than  others,  according  as,  by  superior  strength  or  skill,  one 
housefather  acquired  more  cattle  than  another.  Early  Irish 
society  was  elaborately  organized  into  classes,  which  dis- 
tinguished between  the  ordinary  freemen  {NcmS)  and  the 
rich  cattle  owners  {Boaire),  and  between  the  various  degrees 
of  wealth  among  the  latter.  And  the  primitive  uniformity  of 
membership  ultimately  became  quite  broken  up  by  the 
practice,  adopted  by  the  rich  Boaire,  of  lending  their  super- 
fluous cattle  to  the  poorer  tribesmen  in  return  for  rents  or 
regular  payments,  as  well  as /eastings  or  occasional  enter- 


THE   DOMESTICATION   OF   ANIMALS  31 

tainments  of  the  cattle-owner,  who  visited  his  borrower  from 
time  to  time,  no  doubt  under  the  pretence  of  seeing  how  his 
cattle  were  getting  on. 

New  ideas. — Once  more,  the  domestication  of  animals  is 
responsible  for  two  very  important  ideas,  without  which 
civilized  society  could  not  hold  together  in  its  present  form. 
These  are  the  ideas  of  profit  and  capital.  The  former  is 
now  looked  upon  as  the  net  gain  in  any  commercial  trans- 
action. Originally  it  was  the  offspring  of  domestic  animals. 
The  household  which  had  a  dozen  goats  in  one  year  might 
find  itself,  without  any  further  captures,  in  possession  of 
twenty  in  the  following.  The  idea  gradually  spread,  and  all 
modem  industry  is  based  on  it.  Again,  even  if  there  were 
no  births  in  his  flock,  the  pastoralist  would  find  that,  at  any 
rate  for  a  time,  he  could  go  on  living  on  the  produce  of  his 
animals,  the  milk  of  goats  and  cows,  the  wool  of  sheep, 
without  reducing  his  numbers.  This  discovery  would  tend 
very  powerfully  to  induce  him  to  save  his  animals,  i.  e.,  not 
to  slaughter  them,  in  order  that  they  might  produce  constant 
income.  That  is  precisely  what  we  mean  by  the  term  capital. 
It  is  wealth  saved  to  produce  future  wealth.  But  there  was 
no  room  for  these  great  ideas  in  savage  society.  They  are 
the  direct  outcome  of  pastoral  pursuits.  So  we  see  that  the 
lazy  and  overfed  savage,  who  amused  himself  by  taming  and 
petting  his  superfluous  captive  animals,  was  really  beginning 
a  revolution  in  the  world's  history.  It  is  rather  curious  that 
the  power  of  taming  new  animals  seems  to  be  almost 
extinct  among  civilized  men.  Is  this  because  all  the  tamable 
animals  have  been  tamed,  or  because  civilized  man  has 
become  so  unlike  wild  animals  that  he  has  lost  the  art  of 
understanding  them  ? 


CHAPTER  V 

Tribal  Organization 

Wb  now  come  to  deal  with  the  way  in  which  society 
organizes  itself  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  this  pastoral 
existence  which  we  have  tried  to  describe.  And,  in  dealing 
with  this  subject,  by  preference  we  will  borrow  our  illustra- 
tions from  the  Keltic  peoples  of  the  British  Islands,  who, 
untiJ  comparatively  recent  times,  occupied  the  patriarchal 
stage,  and  from  those  subjects  of  our  Indian  Empire,  such 
as  the  natives  of  the  Panjab,  who,  even  at  the  present  day, 
afford  most  valuable  opportunities  for  the  study  of  patri- 
archal institutions.  Occasionally  we  may  refer  to  other 
examples,  such  as  the  Homeric  Greeks,  the  ancient  Romans, 
the  Maoris  of  New  Zealand  and  the  Arabs,  in  order  to 
broaden  our  horizon,  and  to  realize  how  widely  spread  is 
this  phase  of  development.  But  we  shall  gain  in  vividness 
by  keeping  close  to  one  model. 

The  tPibe. — In  society  of  the  patriarchal  type  the  im- 
portant group  is,  as  we  have  said,  the  tribe,  or  body  of 
people  believing  themselves  to  be  descended  strictly  in  the 
male  line  from  some  far-off  ancestor.  We  say  "believing 
themselves,"  advisedly;  for  if  our  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  tribe  be  correct,  the  rule  of  male  succession  only 
de\'eloped  after  the  group  had  been  in  existence,  perhaps 
for  thousands  of  years.  But  the  intense  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence from  the  beginning  of  the  so-called  agnatic*  rule  of 


•The  term  is  derived  from  Roman  Law,  which  contrasted  agnatio,  or 
connection  through  male  ancestors,  with  cognatio  or  ordinary  blood 
relationship. 

(32) 


TRIBAL    ORGANIZATION  33 

succession,  is  evidenced  by  the  amusing  attempts  of  the 
tribesmen  themselves  to  discover  a  single  male  ancestor,  or, 
as  he  is  called  by  scientific  writers,  an  eponym,  for  their  tribe. 
Thus,  we  find  the  chroniclers  of  British  history  deriving  the 
descent  of  their  tribe  from  Brutus  of  Troy,  the  grandson  of 
^neas  ;  the  Cymry  of  Strathclyde  are,  in  an  early  document, 
said  to  be  all  descended  from  one  Coel  Hen,  whose  name  is 
supposed  to  survive  in  various  place  names  in  Ayrshire  ; 
each  of  the  Teutonic  tribes  which  settled  in  Britain  alleged 
its  descent  from  the  Scandinavian  hero  Odin  ;  the  Behichis 
of  the  Panjab  profess  to  be  the  offspring  of  Mir  Hamzah,  an 
uncle  of  the  prophet  Mahomet ;  while  the  Pathans  of  the 
same  neighbourhood  claim  descent  from  Saul,  the  first  king 
of  Israel ! 

Membership  of  the  tPibe.— Such  being  the  importance 
attached  to  male  kinship,  it  is  not  surprising  to  discover 
that,  in  tribal  society,  no  one  can  be  regarded  as  a  full 
member  of  the  tribe  unless  he  is  the  lawful  child  of  a 
full  tribesman.  Such  a  person  is  alone  entitled,  as  of  right, 
to  a  share  in  the  tribal  possessions  ;  he  alone  can  take  part 
in  the  religious  ceremonies  of  the  tribe.  But,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  all  patriarchal  tribes  are  found  to  have  living  among 
them  considerable  numbers  of  strangers,  who,  though 
separated  by  a  great  gulf  from  the  full  tribesmen,  yet  rank 
in  various  degrees  of  social  importance.  There  are,  for 
example,  the  mere  "strangers,"  the  Fiiidhir  (as  the  Irish 
called  them),  the  Alltiids  (as  they  are  called  by  the  Welsh 
Laws),  who  appear  to  be  broken  men  from  other  tribes, 
adopted  or  protected  on  more  or  less  hospitable  terms. 
Along  with  these,  probably,  go  the  offspring  of  the  tribes- 
women  through  marriages  with  such  resident  strangers. 
Occasionally,  in  return  for  very  great  services,  or  after  a 
residence  of  many  generations,  such  persons  are  fully 
adopted  into  the  tribe. 

Serfs. — Then  there  were  the  various  degrees  of  serfs  or 
bondmen  ;  for,  as  we  have  said,  pastoral  society  was  anxious 


34  A  SHORT  HISTORY  OF   POLITICS 

to  secure  cheap  labour.  These  were,  probably,  the  results 
of  forays  upon  neighbouring  tribes,  or  people  whom  we 
should  call  "convicts,"  who  had  become  such  through 
failure  to  pay  compensation  for  injuries  committed  by  them, 
according  to  the  system  to  be  afterwards  explained.  These 
aervile  persons  were  either  employed  as  herdsmen  or  (some- 
what later)  as  farm-labourers,  such  as  the  Sencleithe  of 
Ireland,  or  the  Tceogs  of  Wales  ;  or  they  were  treated  as 
domestic  slaves  {Bothachs  or  Caeths). 

Ranks  within  the  tplbe.— But  it  must  not  be  supposed 
that,  even  among  the  full  tribesmen,  equality  of  ranks  was 
the  rule.  True  it  is  that  every  free  tribesman  was  entitled  to 
his  share  of  the  grazing  land,  to  his  hunting  in  the  waste, 
to  his  oath  of  kindred  (i.  e.,  the  protection  of  his  immediate 
relatives),  and  to  his  armour.  But  it  is  probable,  as  we  have 
said  (p.  26),  that,  from  the  very  first,  the  chief  wealth  of  the 
tribe;  viz.,  its  cattle  and  sheep,  its  camels  and  goats,  were 
looked  upon  as  individual  property  ;  and  the  tribesman  who 
was  not  fortunate  enough  to  inherit  or  to  capture  a  stock  of 
these  was  in  a  somewhat  unenviable  position.  As  the  Irish 
Laws  put  it,  he  was  only  a  Fer  Midba,  or  "inferior  man," 
not  a  Boaire,  or  "lord  of  cattle."  In  fact,  he  was  very 
much  in  the  position  of  the  modern  "free"  workman,  who 
often  finds  that  his  boasted  freedom  means  freedom  to 
starve. 

The  nobles. — In  this  state  of  things  he  very  frequently 
resorted  to  an  e.xpedient  which  is  intensely  interesting,  as 
being  the  earliest  development  of  an  institution  which  was 
destined  to  play  such  a  large  part  in  the  world's  history:  the 
institution  of  landlordism.  Only  it  was  not,  in  these  early 
days,  applied  to  land,  which  was  not  regarded  as  capable  of 
appropriation  by  individuals,  but  to  cattle.  The  rich  Boaire 
loaned  some  of  his  cattle  to  the  poor  Fer  Midba,  who  agreed 
to  take  some  of  them  for  a  certain  period,  and  to  pay  an 
annual  Bestigi  or  food  rent,  being  part  of  the  produce,  and 
to  feast  the  Boaire  and  his  friends  a  certain  number  of  times 


TRIBAL   ORGANIZATION  35 

in  the  year.  Having  the  right  to  feed  a  certain  number  of 
cattle  on  the  tribal  land,  the  borrower  of  cattle  (or  Ceile,  as 
he  was  called)  could  probably  make  enough  to  live  on  out 
of  the  transaction.  If  he  had  some  cattle  of  his  own,  he 
was  called  a  Saer  Ceile,  or  free  tenant ;  but,  if  his  whole 
herd  was  borrowed,  he  became  the  Daer  Ceile  of  the  owner  ; 
not,  technically,  an  unfree  man,  but  a  man  in  a  very  inferior 
position. 

Degrees  of  nobility. — Among  the  rich  men,  or  nobles, 
of  the  tribe,  there  were  also  many  social  degrees,  according 
to  their  wealth  ;  these,  however,  are  not  of  great  impor- 
tance, except  in  relation  to  the  system  of  blood  fines,  of 
which  we  shall  say  something  later. 

Officials  of  the  tribe.— But,  besides  these  divisions 
into  free  and  unfree,  nobles  and  ordinary  freemen,  the  tribe 
had  a  very  important  official  organization. 

I.  The  Chief,  who  was  understood  to  represent  the 
founder  of  the  tribe,  and  who  was  usually  the  oldest  male  in 
a  particular  branch.  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  have 
pointed  out  that  among  the  Australians,  whom  we  have 
taken  as  our  types  of  savage  society,  there  is  nothing  that 
can  be  called  a  chieftainship,  though  there  are,  doubtless, 
often  certain  individuals  who,  from  their  physical  strength  or 
supposed  wisdom,  have  great  influence.  But  in  patriarchal 
society,  there  is  always  a  representative  of  the  tribe.  The 
Irish  call  him  a  Ri,  the  Welsh  a  Pen,  the  Scotch  a  Mormaer, 
the  Teutonic  tribes  a  Cyning  (whence  our  "king"),  the 
Bilijches  a  Tumanddr,  the  Pathans  a  Khan.  He  was  heredi- 
tary, not  in  our  sense,  but  in  the  sense  that  the  eldest  male 
An  the  privileged  line  was  entitled  to  the  office,  unless  dis- 
qualified by  feebleness  or  disease.  The  Welsh  Laws  pictur- 
esquely describe  him  as  "the  oldest  efficient  man  in  the 
kindred  to  the  ninth  descent,  and  a  chief  of  household  ; " 
and  they  go  on  to  enumerate  his  duties  thus  : — 

(a)  He  must  speak  on  behalf  of  his  kin,  and  be  lis- 
tened to ; 


36  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

(5)  He  must  fight  on  behalf  of  his  kin,  and  be  feared  ; 

(c)  He  must  give  security  on  behalf  of  his  kin,  and  be 
accepted. 

In  other  words,  he  must  be  eloquent,  brave,  and  honest ; 
and  if  a  candidate  for  the  position  did  not  manifest  these 
qualities  he  might  be  set  aside.  This  is  probably  all  that  is 
meant  by  certain  writers,  when  they  say  that  the  tribal  chief 
is  "elective."  Of  course  it  was  long  before  the  days  of 
votes  and  ballot-boxes. 

But,  by  an  arrangement  which  shows  a  good  deal  of  wis- 
dom, some  patriarchal  tribes  do  not  wait  until  the  death  of  a 
chief  before  accepting  his  successor.  Amongst  many  of 
them  there  is  — 

2.  An  Heip-AppaPent,  called  by  the  Irish  the  Tanist, 
by  the  Welsh  the  Teisbanteuleu,  who  is  the  person  who  will 
next  succeed  to  the  chieftainship,  in  the  ordinary  way,  after 
the  death  of  the  existing  chief.  After  the  break-up  of  the 
tribes  into  clans  or  septs  in  Ireland,  this  practice  continued  in 
the  smaller  bodies  ;  and  it  was  its  existence  which  did  more 
than  anything  else  to  scandalize  the  Elizabethan  statesmen 
who  tried  to  bring  the  Irish  to  English  notions.  In  Russia, 
the  institution  lingered  for  a  long  while  in  the  person  of  the 
Veliki  Kniaz,  or  Gravid  Prince,  the  eldest  male  of  the  house 
of  Rurik,  the  chief  of  the  Varangian  or  Norman  tribe  which 
conquered  Russia  in  the  ninth  century.  Still  longer  it  con- 
tinued to  be  a  feature  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  which, 
in  addition  to  its  head,  or  Emperor,  had  of  right  also  his 
destined  successor,  the  "  King  of  the  Romans."  During  the 
life-time  of  the  chief,  the  heir-apparant  acted  as  his  deputy, 
and  was,  so  to  speak,  "  learning  the  business." 

3.  The  Champion. —  This  person,  called  among  the 
Irish  and  Scotch  a  Toisech,  among  the  Welsh  a  Dialwr  (or 
"avenger"),  among  the  Teutonic  tribes  a  Heretoch  (or 
"host-leader"),  is  very  interesting,  both  on  account  of  his 
ultimate  destiny,  as  well  as  because  he  is  an  early  instance  of 
what  is  called  "  specialization  of  functions."    Originally,  as 


TRIBAL    ORGANIZATION  37 

we  have  seen,  the  hereditary  chief  was  also  the  head  warrior 
of  the  tribe.  But,  as  the  chief  was  hereditary,  it  would 
often  happen,  in  spite  of  the  power  of  rejection  claimed  by 
the  tribe,  that  the  chief  was  unsuccessful  as  an  actual  warrior. 
He  might  be  wise  and  venerable,  much  respected  and  loved, 
but  no  soldier.  In  times  of  stress  the  tribe  would  naturally 
turn  to  one  of  its  members  who  had  shown  great  bravery 
and  skill  in  fighting,  and,  by  a  sort  of  informal  election,  ap- 
point him  to  lead  them  in  battle,  much  as  the  Romans  did, 
at  a  much  later  stage,  with  their  Dictator.  Apparently,  after 
this  event  had  occurred  two  or  three  times,  the  champion  or 
head  warrior  became  a  recognized  insiitutio7i. 

All  these  three  officials,  the  Chief,  the  Heir- Apparent,  and 
the  Champion,  seem  to  have  been  provided  for  by  the  en- 
dowment of  special  rights  in  the  tribal  land,  by  an  extra 
share  of  the  booty  captured  by  the  tribe  on  its  plundering  ex- 
peditions, and  by  customary  presents  made  on  certain  days 
of  the  year  by  the  members  of  their  tribes.  The  first  of 
these  three  privileges  is  of  special  importance  in  the  History 
of  Politics. 

4.  The  Council,  or  group  of  seniors,  called  by  the  Irish 
Brehons,  by  the  Welsh  Henadwr,  by  the  Teutons  Rachim- 
burgs,  by  the  Mahommedan  inho^sjirgah,  and  by  the  Hindus 
Panchdyat.  This  seems  to  have  been  a  body  of  persons 
gradually  formed  from  the  heads  of  the  subordinate  gp-oups 
in  the  tribe,  by  a  process  which  we  shall  have  to  explain 
in  dealing  with  the  formation  of  clans.  Its  great  function 
was  to  record  the  custom  of  the  tribe,  and  regulate  its  cere- 
monies and  religion.  It  was,  obviously,  a  most  necessary 
institution  after  the  tribe  had  become  numerous,  and  in  days 
which  could  boast  no  written  records.  It  is  most  interesting 
as  the  germ  of  future  constitutional  government,  and  may  be 
regarded,  historically,  as  the  mother  of  Law  Courts,  Cabi- 
nets, and  even  of  Parliaments.  Sometimes,  as  amongst  the 
Welsh,  and  some  of  the  Teutonic  tribes,  it  seems  to  have 
consisted  of  a  small  number  (seven) ;  at  others  it  was  ob- 


38  A   SHORT  HISTORY  OF  POLITICS 

viously  larger,  and  may  have  consisted  of  all  the  heads  of 
households  within  the  tribe.  Later  on,  its  members  appear 
to  have  developed  individual  functions,  as  pedigree-keepers 
(called  by  the  Irish  and  Scotch  Synnar/iies),  priests  (possibly, 
among  the  Welsh,  Druids),  medicine  men,  and  so  on.  But 
it  is  with  the  elders  as  a  body  or  cauncil,  that  we  are  most 
concerned  :  and  the  mention  of  it  brings  us  to  the  considera- 
tion of  two  closely  connected  topics;  viz.,  Tribal  Religion 
and  Tribal  Law,  with  an  account  of  which  this  chapter  may 
fitly  end. 

Tribal  Religion  is  a  striking  testimony  to  the  truth  of 
the  view  previously  quoted  (p.  12),  that  the  second  stage  of 
religious  thought  is  that  in  which  Man  worships  as  his  gods 
beings  who  are,  or  have  been,  men  like  himself,  who  are,  in 
fact,  his  deceased  ancestors.  Ancestor  worship,  which,  even 
at  the  present  day,  is  the  religion  of  multitudes  of  the  human 
race,  especially  in  the  East,  seems  to  arise  from  two  sources. 
The  one  is  a  profound  belief  in  the  existence  of  the  spirit 
world,  in  which  the  dead  live  and  move  as  in  life  ;  and  which 
may,  therefore,  be  fairly  claimed  as  a  crude  form  of  belief  in 
the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The  second  is  the  profound 
deference  to  parental  authority  rendered  during  life  to  the 
head  of  the  patriarchal  household,  and  which,  after  his 
death,  takes  the  form  of  ceremonial  worship.  In  its  more 
cruel  shape,  this  worship  is  celebrated  with  sacrifices,  either 
by  way  of  vengeance  upon  the  men  who  have  caused,  or  are 
supposed  to  have  caused,  the  death  of  the  ancestor,  or  by 
way  of  providing  him  with  comforts  in  the  spirit-land.  In  its 
more  refined  form,  it  is  a  continuance  of  domestic  worship, 
as  exhibited,  for  example,  in  the  picturesque  ceremonial  of 
the  offerings  of  cake  and  water,  the  sacrificial  meal  and  the 
commemoration  hymns,  of  the  Code  of  Manu  and  other 
Hindu  rituals.  The  centre  of  ancestor  worship  is  \.\\Q/amity 
hearth,  with  its  sacred  fire  and  solemn  festivities ;  and  its 
continued  practice  is  thus  calculated  to  keep  alive,  in  the 
most  vivid   way,  that  spirit  of   kinship  which   is  the  very 


TRIBAL   ORGANIZATION  39 

essence  of  patriarchal  society.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  doubted 
whether  ancestor  worship  plays  quite  such  an  important  part 
in  the  daily  life  of  the  Hindu  as  the  Sacred  Books  would 
lead  us  to  believe  ;  but  it  is  undoubted  that  its  existence  ac- 
counts for  much  that  is  otherwise  obscure,  not  only  in 
Oriental  Society,  but  in  the  history  of  the  early  Greeks  and 
Romans.  Readers  who  are  interested  in  pursuing  this  line  of 
thought  may  be  advised  to  consult  the  late  Mr.  Fustel  de 
Coulanges'  famous  book  "La  Cit^  Antique;"  here  it  will 
be  sufficient  to  state,  by  way  of  contrast,  two  or  three  of  the 
leading  features  in  which  the  ancestor  worship  of  patriarchal 
society  differs  from  religion  as  understood  by  the  modem 
world. 

1.  It  is  not  proselytizing.— The  great  religions  of  the 
modem  world  —  Christianity,  Mohammedanism,  even  Buc^- 
dhism  —  profess  to  be  of  universal  application,  and  their  mis 
sionaries  seek  to  make  converts  in  all  lands.  To  an  ances- 
tor worshipper  such  a  course  would  appear  not  merely 
ridiculous,  but  positively  treacherous.  His  gods  are  for  him 
and  his  kindred  alone;  he  looks  to  them  for  favour  and  pro- 
tection, as  one  of  their  devout  descendants.  How  could 
strangers  possibly  have  any  share  in  their  worship?  As  a 
consequence,  the  patriarchal  man  who  wandered  away  from 
his  kindred  found  himself  not  only  among  strange  people, 
but  among  strange  gods.  To  him,  expulsion  from  the  tribe 
meant  the  break  up  of  religious  as  well  as  social  ties.  An 
Englishman  of  the  present  day  who  settles  in  France,  Ger- 
many, Italy  or  Spain,  enters  a  place  of  worship,  and  finds 
the  same  God  worshipped,  under  slightly  different  forms  and 
in  a  different  tongue  (unless  he  be  a  Catholic),  but  by  wor- 
shippers of  the  same  faith.  To  an  ancestor  worshipper, 
such  an  experience  would  seem  incredible. 

2.  It  is  not  theological. —  That  is  to  say,  it  does  not 
profess  to  account  for  the  origin  and  constitution  of  the  uni- 
verse. No  doubt  the  patriarchal  man  had  certain  crude 
ways  of  explaining  the  existence  of  the  world  and  its  con- 


40  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

tents.  But  these  were  not  part  of  his  religion.  It  was  not 
until  the  later  speculative  spirit,  introduced  into  Europe  by 
the  Greeks,  attempted  to  link  intellectual  belief  with  religious 
duty,  that  the  modern  kind  of  religion  began.  Even  then, 
as  we  learn  from  more  than  one  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,* concerning  "meats  oflfered  to  idols,"  some  of  the 
early  Christian  converts  considered  it  quite  possible  to  com- 
bine an  intellectual  acceptance  of  Christianity  with  a  con- 
tinuance of  their  ancestral  rites.  Ancestor  worship,  in  fact, 
was  a  purely  practical  religion,  imposing  a  code  of  duties  on 
its  followers,  but  making  no  demands  upon  their  belief. 

3.  It  Is  secpet. —  The  view  that  their  ancestors  belonged 
to  them  alone  naturally  made  the  tribesmen  very  jealous  of 
strangers  acquiring  any  knowledge  of  their  forms  of  worship. 
Consequently,  the  most  rigid  care  was  taken  by  each  tribe, 
and,  after  the  tribe  split  up  into  sections,  by  each  section,  to 
prevent  a  knowledge  of  these  ceremonies  leaking  out;  and 
many  of  the  most  dramatic  stories  of  ancient  history  turn 
upon  the  vengeance  taken  upon  interlopers  who  had 
succeeded  in  penetrating  the  mysteries  of  religious  celebra- 
tions. In  each  household,  the  particulars  of  its  sacred  rites 
were  passed  on  from  father  to  son  in  the  greatest  secrecy. 
The  secrets  of  the  tribe  were  in  the  custody  of  the  elders  or 
wise  men,  who,  in  somewhat  more  advanced  times,  formed 
themselves  into  hereditary  bodies,  or  colleges,  for  their 
preservation  and  practice.  The  very  existence  of  the  tribe 
was  believed  to  depend  upon  the  safeguarding  of  these 
mysteries ;  and,  if  a  disaster  happened,  one  of  the  readiest 
suggestions  to  account  for  the  mishap  was  that  the  ancestors 
were  offended,  because  "strange  fire"  had  been  offered  on 
their  altar. 

Tribal  Law.— Closely  connected  with  Tribal  Religion, 
in  fact  originally  part  of  it,  was  Tribal  Law.  One  of  the 
direct  results  of  ancestor  worship  was  a  religious  adherence 

*E.  g.,  Acts  XV.  29. 


TRIBAL   ORGANIZATION  41 

to  ancestral  custom:  that  is,  to  the  practices  observed  in  life 
by  the  revered  ancestors.  And  this  was  the  main  idea  of  Law, 
as  conceived  by  patriarchal  society.  The  notion  of  Law  as 
the  command  of  an  absolute  ruler,  whether  an  individual 
or  a  body,  was  yet  far  in  the  future.  Law  was  not  a  thing  to 
be  fnade,  but  a  thing  to  be  discovered.  The  old  savage 
notion  of  taboo,  which,  as  we  saw,  was  purely  negative,  had 
been  largely  superseded  by  the  positive  notion  of  custom. 
What  was  customary  was  right,  what  was  uncustomary  was 
wrong.  The  desperate  tenacity  with  which  patriarchal  society 
clung  to  a  practice,  merely  because  it  was  a  practice,  is 
illustrated,  among  hundreds  of  other  examples,  by  the  well- 
known  Roman  custom  of  examining  the  entrails  of  victims 
to  ascertain  the  prospects  of  an  expedition.  Originally,  no 
doubt,  it  was  a  practical  expedient  adopted  by  the  nomad 
tribes  from  which  the  Romans  were  descended,  in  their 
wanderings  through  unknown  country.  To  test  the  fitness 
for  food  of  the  new  herbs  with  which  they  came  into  contact, 
they  caused  a  few  of  their  cattle  and  sheep  to  eat  them,  and 
then,  by  a  sort  of  rude  post-mortem,  judged  of  the  result. 
The  real  origin  of  customs  is  often  very  hard,  however,  to 
discover.  Sometimes  it  seems  to  have  been  mere  accident. 
The  ingenious  account  of  the  origin  of  roast  sucking  pig, 
given  by  Charles  Lamb  in  his  well-known  Essay,  though 
intended  by  him  as  a  joke,  may  really  be  a  brilliant  guess  at 
the  truth.  In  other  cases,  no  doubt,  an  exceptionally  able 
man  deliberately  made  an  innovation,  which  was  afterwards 
copied  by  others,  as  it  was  found  to  be  useful.  But  such 
enterprise  must  have  been  very  dangerous.  The  first  man 
who  drank  the  milk  of  his  cow  probably  paid  for  his  luxury 
with  his  life.  In  patriarchal  society,  innovation  and  crime 
are  almost  co-incident.  So  little,  indeed,  is  deliberate  de- 
parture from  custom  anticipated,  that  there  seems  to  be  no 
regular  punishment  for  it.  The  chief  or  elders  will  declare 
the  custom  ;  that  is,  or  ought  to  be,  sufficient.  But  if  an 
offender  persists  in  his  impiety,  the  outraged  community  will 


42  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

banish  him  from  its  ranks.  In  the  expressive  language  of  the 
Welsh  Laws,  he  will  be  a  "  kin-shattered  man,"  an  outlaw, 
in  fact.  If  the  tribe  lives  near  the  sea  he  will  probably  be 
set  adrift  on  an  open  raft ;  this  was  the  method  with  the 
South  Welsh.  Other  codes  speak  of  turning  the  offender 
"  into  the  forest."  In  either  case,  the  result  would  be  much 
the  same. 

The  blood  feud. —  For  injuries  to  individual  fellow- 
tribesmen,  the  universal  remedy  was  the  lex  talionis,  admin- 
istered by  the  blood  feud.  Barbarous  as  such  an  institution 
seems  to  us,  it  is  probably  one  of  the  most  important  steps 
ever  taken  towards  civilization.  A  man  is  killed.  Instead 
of  the  murder  producing  indiscriminate  slaughter,  it  gives 
rise  to  an  ordered  scheme  of  vengeance  conducted  by  the 
immediate  relatives  of  the  slain  man  against  the  murderer 
and  his  immediate  relatives.  If  there  be  any  doubt  about 
the  facts,  certain  rough  tests  are  applied,  which  to  us  would 
appear  very  unsatisfactory.  The  accused  brings  a  certain 
number  of  his  relatives  to  swear  to  his  innocence,  or  some 
rude  sort  of  ordeal  is  used.*  If  the  accused  is  deemed 
guilty,  the  feud  goes  on,  unhappily  for  a  very  long  time. 

Blood  fines. —  A  great  step  further  is  taken,  when,  for 
the  right  of  vengeance  is  substituted  the  payment  of  compen- 
sation. The  circumstances  of  pastoral  society  permit  of  this. 
The  existence  of  cattle  and  sheep  form  a  standard  of  value, 
by  which  the  life  of  a  man  can  be  measured.  Starting  with  the 
simple  idea  that  a  man  is  worth  what  he  owns,  and  taking  the 
ordinary  free  tribesman  as  the  unit,  the  tribe  sets  up  an  elab- 
orate scale  of  money  fines  (the  eric  of  the  Irish,  the  galanas 
of  the  Welsh,  the  cro  of  the  Scotch,  the  wer  of  the  Teutons), 
carefully  graduated  according  to  ( i )  the  importance  of  the 
injured  party,  (2)  the  extent  of  the  damage.     Apparently, 


♦One  of  these  probably  survives,  in  backward  countries,  to  the 
present  day.  Each  of  the  mourners  touches  the  body  at  a  funeral. 
The  ancient  belief  was  that  if  the  touch  was  that  of  the  murderer 
the  corpse  would  bleed  afresh. 


TRIBAL   ORGANIZATION  43 

the  proceedings  begin  as  before.  The  marks  on  the  dead 
man's  body  are  examined,  the  bloody  weapon  is  traced,  the 
trail  of  the  stolen  cattle  is  followed  until  it  leads  to  the  thief's 
hut ;  and  then,  just  as  the  feud  is  going  to  begin,  the  elders 
intervene  and  urge  the  acceptance  of  a  fine.  At  first,  it 
would  seem,  the  acquiescence  of  the  injured  party  is  volun- 
tary. Until  quite  late  in  history,  the  ultimate  right  to  battle 
cannot  be  denied.  But  every  effort  is  made  by  the  elders  to 
induce  the  parties  to  "swear  the  peace."  In  the  world-wide 
habit  of  shaking  hands,  we  probably  have  a  dim  survival  of 
a  practice  insisted  upon  by  the  early  peace-makers,  as  a 
guarantee  that  the  parties  would  not  use  weapons  against 
one  another,  at  least  till  all  other  remedies  had  been  tried. 
For  if  the  hand  is  clasped  in  another's,  it  can  hardly  strike  a 
blow. 

No  grenepal  rules  of  Tribal  Law.— It  is  obvious 
from  what  has  been  said  that,  while  we  may  describe  the 
general  character  of  Tribal  Law,  no  enumeration  of  its  rules 
can  be  made.  Each  tribe  has  its  own  Law,  binding  only 
upon  members  of  its  own  tribe.  General  principles  will,  no 
doubt,  be  found  running  through  it  all ;  inheritance  in  the 
male  line,  prohibition  of  marriage  outside  the  tribe  (or  inside, 
as  the  case  may  be),  relationship  of  classes,  rights  in  pasture 
land,  and  so  on.  But  in  details  these  will  differ  from  tribe  to 
tribe,  and  even  in  branches  of  the  same  tribe.  The  investiga- 
tions of  the  British  Settlement  Officers  show,  for  example, 
that  there  are  at  least  several  hundred  different  systems  in 
force  in  the  British  Panjab  alone,  though  the  population  of 
that  country  is  a  little  less  than  the  population  of  England. 
Long  before  there  is  a  Law  of  the  Land,  there  is  a  Law  of 
the  Tribe ;  and  by  his  own  Law  alone  will  a  tribesman  con- 
sent to  rule  his  actions. 


CHAPTER  VI 

Agriculture  and  the  Clan 

Origin  of  agPieultUPe.— As  in  the  case  of  the  taming 
of  wild  animals,  so  in  the  case  of  tilling  the  ground,  we  are 
left  in  the  dark  as  to  the  benefactor  who  first  made  the 
priceless  discovery.  Such  scanty  legends  as  exist  on  the 
subject  are  evidently  the  work  of  later  times,  or  refer  to  an 
importation  rather  than  to  a  discovery  of  the  secret. 

But,  if  we  have  no  evidence  on  the  subject,  it  is  one  on 
which  we  may  fairly  indulge  in  scientific  speculation. 
Although  the  Australian  aboriginals  know  nothing  of 
agriculture,  they  gather  the  seeds  of  a  wild  plant  known 
as  iiardoo,  and,  after  bruising  them  in  a  rude  mortar,  make 
them  into  cakes.  Let  us  suppose,  in  some  country  endowed 
with  greater  natural  wealth  than  central  Australia,  that  a 
pack  of  savages,  having  gathered  a  greater  store  of  wild 
seeds  than  it  could  possibly  consume,  buried  the  surplus  in 
some  earth-heap  or  mound,  and  left  it  in  the  summer  camp 
till  the  return  of  spring.  Suppose  an  unusually  wet  winter, 
or  an  exceptionally  early  spring.  Returning  to  its  summer 
quarters,  the  pack  might  well  discover  that  the  stored-up 
grains  had  sprouted  and  assumed  something  like  the  shape 
in  which  they  had  known  the  ears  when  they  had  gathered 
them  in  the  forest  the  previous  autumn.  .Such  an  object- 
lesson  would  hardly  be  lost,  even  on  the  savage  mind.  The 
same  thing  might  well  happen  to  the  wild  yams  or  other 
edible  roots  which  are  some  of  the  earliest  food  of  man. 

Charaetep   of    agpieulture.  — Whenever  the  savage 

(44) 


AGRICULTURE    AND    THE    CLAN  45 

had  begun  to  act  upon  the  idea  this  suggested,  agricuhure, 
in  its  most  primitive  form,  would  have  come  into  existence. 
The  rest  was  only  a  question  of  time.  And  it  is  quite  pos- 
sible that  agriculture,  in  a  ver>'  imperfect  form,  was  prac- 
ticed as  early  as  pastoral  pursuits,  at  least  in  the  majority  of 
cases.  But  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  agriculture  takes 
rank  as  a  development  of  human  industry  distinctly  later 
than  the  tending  of  cattle  and  sheep.  It  is  very  much  more 
laborious ;  and  man,  especially  primitive  man,  has  no  love 
of  work  for  its  own  sake.  Compared  with  the  hard  toil  of 
the  husbandman,  the  life  of  the  shepherd  is  easy  and  enjoy- 
able. The  capture  and  breaking-in  of  wild  animals  is,  to  the 
savage  nature,  a  fascinating  task  ;  the  one  gratifies  his  love 
of  excitement,  the  other  amuses  his  hours  of  idleness.  Even 
the  driving  abroad  of  flocks  and  herds  to  daily  pasture  is  no 
exacting  task.  The  milking,  the  dressing  of  skins,  and  the 
spinning  and  weaving  of  the  pastoralist's  life  are  chiefly  done 
by  the  women  and  children.  But  the  primitive  curse  is  upon 
the  tiller  of  the  soil :  "  in  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou 
eat  bread." 

Reasons  for  its  adoption.  —  Agriculture,  therefore, 
remains  for  ages,  even  after  its  rudiments  are  known,  a  mere 
supplementary  pursuit,  practiced  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
viding a  few  luxuries,  rather  than  the  substantial  occupation 
of  Man.  It  is  not  adopted  on  a  large  scale  till  the  increase 
of  population  (always  the  result  of  a  step  forward  in  civiliza- 
tion) begins  to  press  upon  the  means  of  subsistence.  One 
of  the  most  striking  facts  about  agriculture  is  that,  though  its 
service  is  hard,  its  produce  is  infinitely  greater  than  that  of 
pasturage.  A  learned  German  writer.  Dr.  August  Meitzen, 
who  has  devoted  his  life  to  the  study  of  questions  connected 
with  land  settlement,  calculates  that  an  area  which,  used  as 
a  cattle-run,  will  maintain  one  hundred  people,  will,  if 
brought  under  the  plough,  feed  three  or  four  times  that 
number,  and  leave  a  substantial  margin  over.  Probably  the 
practice  of  agriculture,  on  a  large  scale,  began  in  the  Delta 


46  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

of  the  Nile  and  the  Mesopotamian  countries,  where  the 
barren  desert  afforded  little  pasturage  for  cattle,  but  the  rich 
alluvial  valleys  of  the  great  rivers  rendered  agriculture  easy 
and  profitable.  From  thence  it  spread  through  Asia  Minor, 
northwards  and  westwards,  till  it  became  known  throughout 
Europe,  and  was  gradually  adopted  as  the  needs  of  the 
population  demanded  it.  When  Cassar  says  of  the  Germans 
that  they  do  not  "study"  agriculture,*  he  probably  does  not 
mean  that  they  had  never  heard  of  it,  but  that  they  found  it 
easier  to  satisfy  themselves  with  milk,  cheese  and  flesh,  the 
produce  of  pastoral  pursuits.  There  is  a  very  interesting 
passage  in  the  "Book  of  the  Abbey  of  Clonmacnoise," 
which  tells  of  Ireland  that  "there  was  not  ditch  nor  fence 
nor  stone  wall  round  land  till  came  the  period  of  the  sons  of 
Aed  Slane  (seventh  century  A.  D. ),  but  smooth  fields. 
Because  of  the  abundance  of  the  households  in  their  period, 
therefore  it  is  that  they  introduced  boundaries  in  Ireland.'''' 
Some  writers  (e.  g.,  Mr.  Seebohm)  take  this  passage  to  refer 
to  the  breaking-up  of  open  arable  fields  into  small  enclosed 
holdings.  But  there  seems  little  doubt  that  what  the 
chronicler  is  really  referring  to  is  the  general  adoption  of 
agriculture  in  the  place  of  pasturage,  because  of  the  abun- 
dance of  the  households.  There  is,  in  fact,  plenty  of  evidence 
to  prove  that  Ireland  was  once  a  purely  pastoral  country. 

Early  methods  of  agriculture.  —  But  we  must  not 
suppose  that  the  adoption  of  agriculture  meant  the  adoption, 
all  at  once,  of  farming  as  we  understand  it.  Perhaps  it  will 
be  interesting  to  give  a  hasty  sketch  of  the  different  stages 
through  which  the  cultivation  of  the  ground  has  passed. 
Afterwards  we  may  pass  to  the  still  more  important  subject 
of  the  results  of  the  adoption  of  agriculture. 

I.  Forest  clearings. — The  beginnings  of  agriculture 
nearly  always  involved  clearing  the  ground,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  most  fertile  land  is  sure  to  be  covered  with 


, *"AgricuUur8e  non  student."    (  De  Bello  Gallico,  vi.  ai.) 


AGRICULTURE   AND    THE   CLAN  47 

the  rank  growth  of  ages.  Doubtless,  much  land  had 
already  been  cleared  for  pasture ;  but  people  are  unwilling 
to  sacrifice  this  for  the  apparently  uncertain  prospects  of 
harvest.  Sometimes  the  forest  is  cleared  by  burning,  the 
ashes  being  used  as  a  sort  of  primitive  manure,  and  the 
seed  being  simply  thrown  in  and  left  to  come  up  with  the 
forest  weeds.  In  other  places,  the  axe  is  used,  and  the 
ground,  when  cleared,  broken  up  with  the  mattock,  or 
primitive  hoe,  which  seems  to  have  been  an  early  modifica- 
tion of  the  savage's  digging-stick. 

Extensive  cultivation.  — The  ground  thus  cleared  is 
cropped  year  after  year,  until  one  of  the  fundamental  laws 
of  nature  begins  to  assert  itself ;  viz.,  that  a  repetition  of  the 
same  crop  on  the  smne  land  tends  to  produce  barrenness. 
The  returns  are  less  and  less  each  year,  till  the  ground  is 
abandoned  in  despair  (probably  being  deemed  accursed), 
and  a  new  patch  is  taken  into  cultivation.  This  agriculture 
is  technically  called  extensive,  and  is,  of  course,  very  ex- 
travagant, both  in  labour  and  land. 

2.  Field-grass  system.  — Although  the  clearings  are 
thus  abandoned  for  purposes  of  sowing,  they  act  as  a  sort  of 
rough  pasture,  or  fallow,  for  the  cattle  of  the  community, 
who  pick  up  a  scanty  subsistence  from  the  shoots  and  weeds 
remaining  after  the  reaping  of  the  last  crop.  In  tropical 
countries,  such  as  India,  and  even  in  subtropical  lands,  such 
as  the  fertile  districts  of  southern  Australia,  abandoned 
patches  speedily  become  again  converted  into  "jungle"  or 
"bush,"  and  explorers  of  later  generations  are  startled  to 
find,  in  the  depths  of  the  forest,  traces  which  point  indis- 
putably to  the  existence  of  former  cultivation.* 

Alternations  of  CFop  and  fallow.— But,  in  temperate 
zones,  the  land  is  not  covered  again  with  trees,  and,  after 
the  newly-reclaimed  patches  have  been  themselves  ex- 
hausted,  the  tribesmen  return   to   their   old  patches  and 


*  No  doubt  this  fact  accounts  for  a  good  many  of  the  so-called  "  dis- 
coveries of  pre-historic  races." 


48  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

plough  these  again,  to  save  tliemselves  the  trouble  of  fur- 
ther clearing.  Then  is  discovered  another  great  secret  of 
Nature;  viz.,  that,  though  successive  crops  of  the  same 
kind  will  exhaust  a  piece  of  land,  yet,  if  that  same  piece  is 
left  to  lie  fallow  for  a  time,  it  will  recover  its  fertility.  This 
discover}'  lead?  directly  to  — 

3.  The  two-field  system,  in  which  the  community 
keeps  two  distinct  patches  of  land  at  work,  sowing  one  in 
each  alternate  year,  and  leaving  the  other  to  lie  fallow.  This 
.system  of  agriculture  is  widely  prevalent  in  backward  coun- 
tries at  the  present  day. 

4.  The  three-field  system.  —  This,  which  is  really  an 
improved  variety  of  the  last  system,  is  due  to  the  still  further 
discovery  that,  although  a  continuation  of  the  same  crop  on 
the  same  piece  of  land  exhausts  it  very  quickly,  an  alterna- 
tion of  crops  will  not  exhaust  it  so  quickly.  The  plan  is, 
therefore,  to  have  three  fields  and  two  different  crops  going 
on  at  once,  the  third  field  lying  fallow  once  in  every  three 
years,  instead  of  once  in  every  two.  Thus,  in  a  course  of 
three  years  — 

1st  year— Field  A  =  oats  B  =  beans  C  =  fallow 
and  "  —  "  B  =  oats  C  =  beans  A  =  fallow 
3rd   "    —    "      C  =  oats       A  ^  beans        B  =  fallow 

and  so  on  for  each  triennial  period. 

Question  between  the  two-field  and  the  three- 
field  system.  —  The  advantages  of  this  plan,  in  the  in- 
creased variety  of  crops,  was  early  perceived  ;  but,  for  a  long 
time,  people  preferred  to  work  it  with  the  two-field  system, 
by  dividing  the  ploughed  field  each  year  into  two  parts.  In 
fact,  they  were  afraid  that  the  other  s\'stem  would  require 
too  much  ploughing.  During  the  later  Middle  Ages  this 
was  a  "burning  question"  in  western  Europe.  But  the 
three-field  people  won  the  day,  as  they  were  bound  to  do; 
and  their  argument  is  so  triumphant  and  so  neat  that  it  is 
worth  while  to  set  it  out.  We  take  first  an  imaginary  area 
of  180  acres,  divided  into  two  fields,  one  of  which  lies  fallow 


AGRICULTURE   AND    THE   CLAN 


49 


every  year,  while  the  other  is  partly  under  oats  and  partly 
under  beans  or  peas.    Thus  — 

A  (90  acres).        B  (90  acres). 


A  I. 

(45  acres.) 

Bi. 

(45  acres.) 

A  2. 
(45  acres.) 

B  2. 

(45  acres.) 

Now  take  an  imaginary  course  during  any  one  year. 

September.    Plough  A  i ,  and  sow  oats =   45  acres 

March.     Plough  As,  and  sow  beans =   45  acres 

June.     Plough  B  (whole)  twice*  and  leave 

fallow =j8o  acres 

Total  ploughing 270  acres 

Now  take  the  same  area  divided  into  three  fields. 

A  (60  acres).    B  (60  acres).    C  (60  acres). 


Again  a  year's  ploughing  : 

September.    Plough  A  and  sow  oats =   60  acres 

March.    Plough  B  and  sow  beans =   60  acres 

June.     Plough  C  twice,  and  leave  fallow  . .  =  120  acres 

Total 240  acres 

♦This  is  necessary  after  the  crop,  to  get  rid  of  stubble. 

D 


go  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

i.  e.,  actually  30  acres  less  of  ploughing.  But  that  is  not  aO. 
For,  if  we  look  back  we  see  that,  if  we  have  worked  our 
lands  on  the  two-field  system,  we  have  only  harvested  the 
crops  of  90  acres  ;  but,  if  we  have  used  the  three-field  sys- 
tem, we  have  taken  the  produce  of  120  acres.  Thus,  the 
three-field  system  beats  the  two-field,  hands  down  ;  and  it  is 
not  surprising  to  find  that,  in  medieval  Europe,  it  became 
the  rule  in  the  most  progressive  countries,  and  developed  a 
regular  set  of  names.  Thus,  in  England,  the  autumn- 
sowing  was  called  the  iilth  grain,  the  spring  sowing  the 
eich  grain,  and  the  idle  field  the  fallow ;  and  there  are 
corresponding  terms  in  many  other  countries. 

5.  Convertible  husbandry.  — The  three-field  system 
reigned  supreme  in  western  Europe,  until,  at  a  compara- 
tively recent  date,  it  was  abandoned  in  favour  of  a  still  more 
economical  plan,  by  which  fallows  are  practically  abolished, 
and,  by  a  great  increase  in  the  number  and  variety  of  crops, 
and  the  use  of  artificial  manures,  the  land  is  never  (in  good 
hands)  allowed  to  get  exhausted.  This  change,  which  came 
about  in  England  in  the  eighteenth  centur>',  and  which  was 
greatly  due  to  special  circumstances,  such  as  the  Dutch 
connection  and  war  prices,  is,  however,  closely  connected 
with  an  important  change,  not  merely  in  the  methods,  but  in 
the  orgatiizalion  of  agriculture,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  institu- 
tions by  means  of  which  agriculture  is  worked.*  To  this  we 
must  now  turn  our  attention. 

Organization  of  agpieulture.  — At  the  end  of  the 
Middle  Ages  (as  we  call  them),  that  is  to  say,  when  the 
revival  of  learning  in  Europe  and  the  Reformation  began  to 
break  up  the  old  order  of  things,  the  typical  agricultural 
unit,  not  only  throughout  Europe,  but  among  the  vast  popu- 
lations of  India,  Egypt  and  Persia,  was  the  village  or  town- 
ship.   At  first  sight,  a  village  appears  to  be  merely  a  collec- 


♦All  these  five  stages  of  agricultural  method  may  be  observed   at 
work  in  Sweden  at  the  present  day. 


AGRICULTURE   AND    THE   CLAN  51 

tion  of  farmers  and  labourers,  cultivating  pieces  of  land 
which  happen  to  be  near  together.  And  such,  in  fact,  the 
modern  village  of  western  Europe  generally  is.  The  In- 
habitants are,  in  fact,  merely  neighbours,  nothing  more.  But 
the  medieval  village  was  a  great  deal  more  ;  and  the  differ- 
ence is  usually  expressed  by  describing  it  as  a  village  com- 
munity. There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  nonsense  talked 
about  the  village  community,  as  if  it  necessarily  meant  a 
socialistic  group  of  people,  who  do  their  work  and  hold  the 
proceeds  in  common.  Such  an  assertion  cannot  possibly  be 
made  of  historical  times.  Whatever  may  be  our  view  of  the 
origin  of  the  medieval  village,  it  is  quite  clear  that,  in  his- 
torical times,  we  have  practically  no  evidence  of  an  agricul- 
tural group  (larger  than  a  single  household)  cultivating  its 
field  in  common  and  dividing  the  proceeds.  So  far  as  our 
evidence  goes,  each  farmer  has  his  own  land,  and  reaps  and 
stores  his  own  harvest.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a  real  mean- 
ing in  the  phrase  village  community,  and  we  shall  best  bring 
out  that  meaning  by  enumerating  half  a  dozen  points  in 
which  the  average  village  of  the  sixteenth  century  differed 
from  the  average  English  (or  French  or  German)  village  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

1.  Open  fields.  —  In  the  first  place,  we  notice  a  purely 
physical  difference.  There  were  practically  no  hedges  in  the 
medieval  village.  The  arable  land  of  the  village  lay  in 
great  open  fields,  many  hundreds  of  acres  in  extent,  sepa- 
rated from  one  another  and  from  the  meadow  and  waste 
only  by  balks,  or  banks  of  unploughed  turf,  on  which  grew 
trees  here  and  there.  The  beautiful  hedges  of  the  modern 
English  countrj'^side  are  the  result  of  the  great  enclosure 
m.ovement,  of  which  we  shall  have  to  speak  later  on.  This 
difference,  of  course,  need  not  have  been  connected  with  a 
difference  in  the  methods  of  agriculture.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  it  was  so  connected. 

2.  Equality  of  holdings.  — In  a  modern  village,  the 
farms  will  be  of  all  sorts  of  sizes,  determined  by  the  circum- 


52  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

stances  of  the  case.  But  if  we  examine  the  terrier,  or 
ground-plan,  of  a  medieval  village,  in  which  the  lands 
worked  by  each  farmer  are  distinguished,  we  shall  notice  a 
curious  thing.  We  shall  see  that  there  is  a  tendency  towards 
equality  of  holdings.  There  will  be  a  great  many  farmers 
with  about  thirty  acres  of  plough-land  each.  There  will 
probably  also  be  one  or  two  much  larger  holdings,  e.  g.,  120 
acres,  also  more  or  less  equal  among  themselves,  and,  what 
is  still  more  curious,  bearing  a  fixed  proportion  to  the 
smaller  holdings,  usually  of  four  to  one.  There  will  also  be 
a  number  of  people,  obviously  in  an  inferior  position,  hold- 
ing little  plots  or  patches  cleared  from  the  waste.  Finally, 
there  will  probably  be  a  great  man,  who  has  a  big  house 
and  park  (or  enclosure),  as  well  as  a  great  deal  of  land  in 
the  open  fields. 

3.  Forced  labour. —  Corresponding  with  this  strongly 
marked  division  of  classes,  there  will  be  found,  if  the  affairs 
of  the  medieval  village  be  further  investigated,  a  curious 
system,  by  which  the  two  poorer  classes  in  the  village  render 
labour  services  to  the  richer,  not,  as  agricultural  labourers 
do  now,  for  wages,  but  as  part  of  the  terms  on  which  they 
hold  their  land.  The  poorer  class,  or  cottagers,  will,  prac- 
tically, be  working  almost  entirely  for  the  lord,  as  he  would 
be  called  in  Europe,  for  the  agha  in  Persia,  for  the  zatnindar 
in  India,  possibly  also  for  the  few  rich  farmers,  if  such  ex- 
isted. But  the  ordinary  small  farmer,  the  yardling,  as  the 
English  called  him,  will  also  have  to  work  for  the  lord, 
though  probably  only  a  comparatively  small  part  of  his 
time.  Indeed,  in  many  cases,  he  will  probably  have  coni- 
poimded  for  his  labour  dues  by  payment  of  a  fixed  money 
rent,  and  so  will  be  what  we  should  call  an  ordinary  tenant 
farmer.  Nevertheless  he  will  clearly  at  one  time  have  been 
a  serf ;  i.  e.,  a  man  who  has  to  work  for  another,  whether  he 
likes  it  or  not. 

4.  Intepmixed  plots. — Now-a-days,  the  land  of  each 
farmer  in  a  village  lies  in  a  more  or  less  compact  mass.    The 


AGRICULTURE   AND    THE    CLAN  53 

farmer  would  consider  it  a  great  hardship  and  waste  of  time 
if  it  did  not.  But  the  farmer  in  a  medieval  village  not  only 
had  his  holding  divided  amongst  the  two  (or  three)  great 
fields  into  which  the  arable  land  of  the  village  was  marked 
off  (for  cultivation  according  to  the  rotation  of  crops  pre- 
viously described),  but,  even  in  each  of  these  three  fields, 
his  holding  was  not  compact,  it  was  split  up  into  a  large  num- 
ber of  small  strips  (usually  about  half  an  acre  each)  scattered 
all  over  the  field.  Besides  his  30  acres  or  so  of  arable,  he 
would  also  have  the  right  to  turn  so  many  cattle  and  sheep 
into  the  meadow  of  the  village,  except  at  the  time  of  hay 
growth,  when  the  meadow  would  be  temporarily  enclosed 
with  hurdles,  and  then  he  would  get  the  hay  of  a  small  plot. 
Finally,  he  would  have  the  right  to  turn  so  many  inferior 
beasts  —  donkeys,  geese,  swine  —  on  to  the  waste,  or  uncul- 
tivated land  of  the  village,  and  also  to  cut  turf  and  wood 
therefrom  for  fuel  and  repairs.  Thus  we  see  that  his  holding, 
which  always  included  a  house  in  the  village,  was  a  complete 
outfit,  so  far  as  land  was  concerned. 

Closely  connected  with  the  "  intermixed  "  character  of  the 
farms  was  the  practice  of  shifting,  or  redistributing,  the 
plots  held  by  a  farmer  at  stated  intervals.  This  practice  had 
ceased  in  the  more  progressive  parts  of  Europe  long  before 
the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages  ;  but  in  Sweden  and  Denmark 
there  were  clear  traces  of  its  existence  ;  in  India,  under  the 
name  of  vesh,  it  was  well  known,  and  in  Persia,  even  at  the 
present  day,  it  frequently  takes  place  under  the  management 
of  the  headman  of  the  village. 

5.  Customary  management. —This  feature  which, 
perhaps,  distinguishes  the  medieval  village  more  clearly 
than  any  other  from  the  modern  village,  was  a  necessary 
result  of  the  system  of  intermixed  holdings.  All  the  work 
of  the  village  was  settled  by  a  rigid  system  of  rules,  handed 
down  from  remote  ages,  which  prescribed  exactly  when  and 
how  each  operation  should  be  begun,  done,  and  ended. 
Now-a-days  each  farmer  manages  his  lands  as  he  thinks 


54  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

best,  subject  to  the  terms  of  his  agreement  with  his  land- 
lord. If  fanner  Jones  thinks  it  wise  to  cut  his  hay  on  Mon- 
day, he  is  not  obliged  to  wait  for  farmer  Smith,  who  thinks 
that  Thursday  will  be  better.  Each  farmer  cuts  his  hay 
when  he  thinks  best.  But  this  sort  of  independence  would 
have  been  impossible  when  the  lands  of  all  the  different 
farmers  were  mixed  up  together.  The  village  was  fixed  in 
the  grip  of  custom,  and  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why  agri- 
culture was  for  so  many  centuries  unprogressive,  was  just 
because  the  enterprising  farmer  could  not  act  without  con- 
vincing the  whole  of  his  fellow-villagers. 

6.  Officials. —  Now-a-days  the  ordinary  village  perhaps 
has  its  policeman,  and  maybe  its  tnaire  or  chairman  of 
parish  council ;  but  the  policeman  is  probably  appointed  and 
paid  by  a  distant  authority,  and  the  maire  or  chairman  has 
very  little  real  power.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  each  village  had 
an  elaborate  staflf  of  officials,  whose  duty  it  was  to  work  for 
the  whole  village.  First,  there  was  the  headman  or  reeve, 
chosen  from  or,  it  may  even  be,  by  the  villagers,  who  repre- 
sented the  villagers  as  a  whole,  was  responsible  to  the  lord 
for  their  labour  dues,  enforced  the  customs,  and  was  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  village  in  its  dealings  with  the  outside 
world.  The  position,  though  it  doubtless  carried  (as  it  still 
does  in  India  and  Persia)  certain  privileges,  was  not  without 
its  drawbacks  ;  and  there  are  some  traces  of  a  rule  that  its 
acceptance  was  compulsory.  Then,  too,  there  was  a  constable 
or  beadle,  whose  duty  it  was  to  carry  messages  round  the 
village,  to  summon  the  villagers  to  meet  under  the  sacred 
tree,  and  generally  to  enforce  the  orders  of  the  reeve  and 
moot,  or  meeting  of  the  villagers.  Then  there  was  thepomid- 
keeper,  who  seized  straying  beasts  and  kept  them  in  custody 
till  their  owners  made  fine  to  the  village  chest ;  the  parker, 
or  common-keeper,  whose  duty  it  was  to  tend  the  cattle  and 
sheep  in  the  meadow,  and  to  see  that  no  one  put  in  more 
than  his  proper  share  or  stint;  the  swine-herd,  who  led  the 
swine  of  the  village  daily  to  the  wood  to  grub  for  acorns ; 


AGRICULTURE    AND   THE   CLAN  55 

the  goose-herd,  and  so  on.  In  many  villages,  all  over  the 
world,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  village  to  provide  watchmen,  at 
least  during  certain  times  of  the  year,  to  guard  the  flocks  at 
night.  We  find  our  English  Edward  I.,  in  his  great  Statute 
of  Winchester,  insisting  that  the  custom  should  be  kept  up ; 
and  the  "Watch"  were  a  standing  joke  in  Shakespeare's 
time.  In  India  and  other  Oriental  countries,  even  at  the 
present  day,  the  village  carpenter,  potter,  blacksmith, 
cobbler,  etc.,  are  real  officials,  provided  for,  like  the  other 
officials,  by  an  allowance  of  land,  which  is  plowed  and  sown 
for  them  by  the  farmers,  while  they,  in  return,  must  give 
their  labour  to  any  villager  who  may  require  it.  Doubtless 
it  was  so  at  one  time  in  Europe. 

Opigin  of  the  village.— This  description  will  have 
been  sufficient  to  show  that  the  medieval  village,  though 
not  that  socialistic  community  which  platform  orators  have 
delighted  to  describe  it,  was  a  very  highly  organized  and 
closely  compacted  body,  something  utterly  different  from  the 
mere  groups  of  independent  farmers  in  modern  Europe, 
usually  held  together,  if  at  all,  only  by  the  fact  that  they  are 
tenants  of  the  same  landlord. 

Two  views. —  Now,  concerning  the  origin  of  this  village 
community,  a  conflict  fierce,  and,  it  is  to  be  feared,  somewhat 
acrimonious,  has  raged.  For,  whilst  we  have  had  great  con- 
troversialists, such  as  Mr.  Seebohm,  Professor  Vinogradofl, 
Professor  Maitland  (who  can  hardly  be  called  a  controver- 
sialist at  all),  and  M.  Fustel  de  Coulanges,  who  have  all 
combined  great  learning  with  perfect  courtesy,  we  have  also, 
unhappily,  had  inferior  controversy  from  apologists  of  par- 
ticular theories,  who  have  not  always  observed  the  courtesies 
of  scholarship.  Briefly  speaking,  and  putting  aside  minor 
details,  the  rival  views  are  (i)  that  the  typical  village  was 
originally  a  h2Lndt.oi  kinsmen  working  for  themselves;  (2) 
that  it  was  originally  a  group  of  serfs  (or  slaves)  working  for 
a  master.  Mr.  Seebohm  and  M.  Fustel  de  Coulanges  take 
the  latter  view;  Professor  Vinogradoff  and  (with  reserva- 


I 


56  A    SHORT   HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

tions)  Professor  Maitland  take  the  former.  It  is  so  ex- 
tremely unlikely  that  the  views  of  any  of  these  eminent  and 
learned  men  are  totally  baseless,  that  is  a  pleasing  task  to 
the  author  to  suggest  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  shall 
combine  the  views  of  both  sides. 

Glancing  back  for  a  moment  at  our  account  of  Tribal 
Organization,  we  shall  remember,  in  the  first  place,  that, 
though  what  may  be  called  the  average  tribesmen  were  free- 
born  kinsmen  of  each  other,  there  was  also  attached  to  each 
tribe  a  body  of  strangers,  in  a  more  or  less  inferior  and 
servile  position.  Furthermore,  we  shall  remember  that, 
among  the  Irish  and  kindred  races,  the  rich  tribesman  fre- 
quently loaned  out  part  of  his  cattle  to  poorer  freemen,  in 
return  for  an  annual  payment  or  rent,  and  certain  feastifigs 
or  entertainments.  Finally,  we  shall  remember  that  each 
tribe  had  its  chief  or  head,  who  was  endowed  with  special 
privileges,  and  who  received  various  gifts  and  offerings  from 
the  tribesmen.  Here  at  once  we  have  a  division  of  patri- 
archal society  into  ranks,  which  correspond  in  a  most 
curious  way  with  the  divisions  in  an  ordinary  village  com- 
munity, as  described  in  this  chapter.  The  tribal  chief  cor- 
responds with  the  village  lord  or  agha,  the  rich  tribesmen 
with  the  holders  of  large  farms,  the  poor  tribesmen  with  the 
yardlings,  or  thirty -acre  men,  the  "strangers"  with  the 
cottagers  or  serfs  of  the  village. 

Similapity  between  tribal  and  village  opganiza- 
tion. —  But,  after  all,  such  a  coincidence  may  be  merely 
casual.  We  have  no  right  to  say  that  it  proves  the  connec- 
tion between  the  tribe  and  the  village.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
there  are  substantial  differences  to  be  accounted  for ;  and  it 
is  by  the  neglect  to  explain  such  differences  that  historians 
claiming  to  be  scientific  incur  ridicule.  For  example,  in  the 
tribe,  the  poor  Ceile,  or  holders  of  stock,  pay  their  rents,  not 
to  the  chief,  but  to  their  individual  cattle- owners,  while,  in 
the  village,  the  labour  services  of  t\\e yardlitigs  are  rendered 
almost  wholly  to  the  lord.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  an 


AGRICULTURE   AND   THE   CLAN  57 

important  transition  step  between  the  tribe  and  the  village, 
namely,  the  clan;  and  it  is  for  evidence  of  the  nature  and 
origin  of  this  body  that  we  must  look. 

The  Flaith.— Fortunately,  it  is  not  very  hard  to  find. 
If  we  look  once  more  at  our  "Ancient  Laws  of  Ireland,"  we 
shall  find  an  important  person  known  as  the  Flaith,  who  is 
permanently  connected  with  a  definite  territory  upon  which 
are  settled  — 

(a)   His  Ciniud,  or  agnatic  kinsmen,  grouped  together  in 

an  apparently  artificial  way,  known  as  Fine; 
{b)    His  Ceile,  or,  as  we  should  call  them,  tenants,  who, 
though  tribesmen,  have  accepted  stock  from  him 
in  manner  before  described  ; 
{c)    His  Fuidhir,  or  strangers,  who,   apparently,  have 
become  his  peculiar  charge,  either  by  some  kind 
of  distribution  within  the  tribe,  or  by  voluntary 
arrangement. 
Apparently,  in  order  to  attain  this  position  of  Flaith,  or 
landlord,  the  ordinary  Boaire,  or  rich  cattle-owner,  must 
have  held  his  position  for  three  generations.     The  third  in 
descent  from  the  Boaire,  if  he  is  still  rich  and  has  main- 
tained his  position  on  the  same  land,  becomes  a  Flaith. 
But   how   did   he    come    to    be    settled    permanently    on 
this  land? 

No  subdivisions  of  land  in  the  pastoral  pepiod.— 
It  is  fairly  clear  that,  during  the  purely  pastoral  epoch,  there 
were  no  permanent  divisions  of  the  land  within  the  tribe. 
Each  man's  share  of  the  tribal  land  was  reckoned,  not  in 
acres  or  other  land  measurement,  but  vcC cattle  and  sheep.  It 
was,  obviously,  much  easier  to  reckon  this  way  than  to  go  to 
the  trouble  of  measuring  out  the  land  and  allotting  a  portion 
to  each  man.  The  cattle  wandered  about,  according  to  the 
season  of  the  year,  followed  by  the  tribesmen  with  their  tents 
and  scanty  goods ;  and  it  is  probable  that  this  is  all  that  a 
good  deal  of  the  so-called  nomadism  amounted  to.  But  now 
we   have   to  suppose  the   practice  of   agriculture  slowly 


58  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

adopted,  "because  of  the  abundance  of  the  households.'* 
Gradually  this  wandering  existence  became  more  and  more 
impossible.  Granted  that,  at  first,  the  cultivators  of  the 
soil  cleared  and  broke  up  any  part  of  the  forest  land  not 
actually  occupied  by  their  fellow-tribesmen,  sooner  or 
later  the  improvements  in  agriculture  described  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter  rendered  people  unwilling  to 
abandon  their  land.  But  who  were  the  earliest  cultivators 
of  the  soil?  Obviously,  the  strangers  attached  to  the  tribe, 
upon  whom  the  rough  work  of  the  community  fell,  and  who 
would  be  the  first  to  suffer  from  scarcity  of  food.  Gradually 
the  tribal  territory  thus  got  broken  up  among  the  rich  tribes- 
men, each  with  his  Ceile  or  dependents  and  his  Fuidhir  or 
strangers  ;  and,  after  three  generations  of  holding,  he  could 
not  be  dispossessed.  This  view  is  strikingly  suggested  for 
Ireland  by  the  famous  poem  of  Finntann  on  the  battle  of 
Magh  Lena.  He  tells  us  that  of  old  Ireland  was  divided 
into  one  hundred  and  eighty-four  Tricha  Ceds,  i.  e.,  tribal 
territories,  that  each  of  them  was  subdivided  into  thirty 
Ballys,  or  clan  lands,  each  maintaining  three  hundred  cattle, 
and  having  twelve  seisrighs,  or  ploughlands,  each  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  acres.  We  are  not  bound  to  suppose 
that  the  poet  was  entirely  accurate  in  his  figures ;  but  he 
was  not  likely  to  have  made  a  glaring  misstatement  of  ob- 
vious facts.  We  may  accept  his  general  description  as  true, 
the  more  so  as  it  is  substantially  supported  by  the  evidence 
of  the  Welsh  Laws. 

The  Welsh  evidence. —  For,  in  the  Welsh  Laws,  we 
have  not  only  the  kin^  or  tribe,  settled  in  its  cantred,  but  we 
have  a  subdivision  known  as  the  gwely,  under  a  breyr,  or 
uchelwr,  who  is  a  sort  of  minor  patriarch,  at  the  head  of  a 
living  family  of  three  generations.  The  term  gwely,  which 
literally  means  a  bed  or  couch,  is  strongly  suggestive  of 
family  ties  ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  in  the  Welsh 
Laws  a  very  interesting  description  of  the  ancient  Welsh 
patriarchal  house,  which  seems  to  have  been  much  of  the 


AGRICULTURE    AND    THE   CLAN  59 

same  type  as  the  ordinary  Gothic  church.  Behind  the 
pillars  (gavels)  which  supported  the  roof  and  formed  the 
nave,  were  what  we  should  call,  in  modem  architecture,  the 
"transepts,"  but  which  the  Laws  call  the  gwelys,  or 
couches ;  and  the  Tir  Gwelyawg,  or  ancestral  land,  is,  like 
the  Irish  Orba,  the  land  of  a  family  which  has  remained  in 
possession  of  the  same  district  for  three  generations,  and 
has  tenants  and  serfs  under  it.  In  the  Welsh  evidence, 
too,  it  is  also  worth  noting  that,  primarily,  the  agriculture 
is  supposed  to  be  done  by  the  Alltuds,  or  strangers ;  the 
free  tribesmen  occupying  themselves  principally  with  cattle- 
rearing. 

The  Scottish  evidence.  — Lastly,  in  the  Scottish  evi- 
dence, especially  that  part  of  it  which  relates  to  the  High- 
lands, we  find  the  clan,  or  section  of  the  tribe,  permanently 
settled  as  a  land-occupying  unit  engaged  in  agriculture. 
Thus,  even  after  the  feudalizing  process,  which  began  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  had  made  some  little  way,  the  davoch  is 
found  to  consist  normally  of  four  parts  ;  viz.,  the  thaneston, 
or  lord's  demesne,  the  tenandries,  or  holdings  of  the 
superior  class,  significantly  known  as  "kindly  tenants," 
usually  on  very  profitable  terms,  the  steelbow  lands,  occu- 
pied (usually  in  holdings  of  two  oxgangs,  or  a  husbandland 
of  about  twenty -six  acres),  by  small  farmers  who  receive 
their  stock  from  the  thane,  or  lord,  and  the  servile  lands, 
occupied  in  small  patches  by  cottagers  who  spend  most  of 
their  time  in  working  on  the  lord's  demesne.  This  looks 
extremely  like  the  Orba  of  the  Irish  Laws,  and  the  Tir 
Gwelyawg  of  Wales. 

Kinship  in  the  village.— Thus,  we  have  seen,  if  our 
account  be  correct,  that  those  writers  who  contend  for  the 
origin  of  the  village  in  a  group  of  kinsmeji,  have  a  good 
deal  of  truth  on  their  side.  And  their  contention  is  in- 
directly supported  by  many  significant,  if  indirect,  survivals. 
One  of  these  is  the  widespread  practice  oi  fosterage  in  early 
agricultural  society,  i.  e. ,  the  practice  of  the  richer  members 


6o  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

of  the  community  putting  out  their  children  to  be  brought 
up  by  the  poorer.  As  is  well  known,  fosterage  ties  were 
looked  upon  in  early  times  as  almost  equivalent  to  kinship  ; 
and  it  would  seem  that  by  this  practice  the  community 
wished  at  least  to  pretend  that  all  its  members  were  of  kin. 
Then,  too,  there  is  the  equally  widespread  practice  of  the 
"maiden  fee"  {Merchet,  as  the  Saxons  called  it ;  Amobyr,  as 
it  was  known  to  the  Welsh).  This  consisted  of  a  payment 
made  to  the  chief  or  lord  on  marriage  of  a  villager's 
daughter,  and  represents,  no  doubt,  the  ancient  "bride- 
price"  received  by  the  wife's  kindred.  Finally,  expressions 
such  as  the  "brotherhood,"  to  signify  the  village  in  certain 
parts  of  India,  and  the  known  unwillingness  in  primitive 
countries  at  the  present  day  to  permit  a  stranger  to  acquire 
lands  in  a  villae:e,  all  point  to  the  same  conclusion. 

Lor-dship  in  the  village.— On  the  other  hand,  the 
writers  who  assert  the  origin  of  the  village  to  be  in  lordship 
rather  than  in  kinship  have  much  on  their  side.  To  say 
nothing  of  the  important  part  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
played  by  the  subject  stranger  in  the  clan,  we  must  not 
forget  that,  wherever  we  find  primitive  agricultural  society, 
we  always  find  something  in  the  nature  of  dues  or  rents  paid 
by  tlie  farmer.  Even  if  we  put  aside  such  obviously  later 
introductions  as  the  Danegelt  in  England,  and  the  KJiiraj 
of  the  Mahommedan  conquests,  about  which  we  must  speak 
at  a  later  stage,  we  have  still  the  food-retits  and  /castings 
(see  p.  34)  due  from  the  receiver  of  stock  to  his  lord,  and 
from  the  latter  to  his  chief ;  while  from  all  lands  something 
in  the  nature  of  tribute  is  paid  to  the  tribal  chief  The 
latter  also,  as  well  as  the  heads  of  clans,  has  his  special 
allotment  of  land  for  his  support,  and  this  he  frequently 
loans  out  to  people  who  pay  him  part  of  the  produce  in 
return,  just  as,  in  the  earlier  pastoral  days,  the  rich  cattle- 
owner  took  food-rents  and  feastings  from  his  Ceile,  or 
receivers  of  stock.  Once  more,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that,  whilst  land  was  still  plentiful,  any  enterprising  clansman 


AGRICULTURE    AND   THE   CLAN  6l 

might  colonize  the  waste  lands  of  the  clan,  and  found  a  new 
village  with  a  band  of  followers  whom  he  collected  round 
him ;  and  in  such  a  case  he  would,  doubtless,  become  the 
lord  of  the  new  village. 

The  fact  is,  that  in  kinship  and  lordship  we  have  two 
very  early  and  very  powerful  principles  of  association.  The 
former  appeals  more  to  sentiment,  and  tends  to  produce 
harmony ;  the  latter  is  founded  upon  respect  for  superior 
strength  and  masterful  qualities,  and  tends  to  produce 
obedience.  Both  harmony  and  obedience  are  essential  to 
the  successful  ordering  of  a  social  unit,  such  as  the  agricul- 
tural village. 


CHAPTER  VII 
Industry  and  the  Gild 

Metal-WOPking. — By  a  somewhat  unfair  use  of  the 
term,  the  word  "industry"  is  usually  appHed  only  to  pur- 
suits other  than  hunting,  cattle-tending  and  agriculture.  In 
a  sense,  therefore,  there  is  "industry"  even  in  the  savage 
epoch,  when  the  women  of  the  pack  skin  and  dress  the 
captured  animals  in  the  cave  or  bark  hut ;  still  more  so  in 
the  pastoral  epoch,  when  the  wife  and  the  daughters  of  the 
shepherd  weave  the  wool  of  the  flocks  into  garments,  and 
make  the  milk  of  the  herds  into  butter  and  cheese.  But  the 
great  spur  to  industry  comes  with  the  development  of  agri- 
culture, when  there  is  a  demand  for  ploughshares,  reaping- 
hooks,  spades,  mattocks  and  hoes  ;  and  this  is  itself  con- 
nected with  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  m  the 
history  of  civilization  :  the  art  of  working  in  metals.  The 
primitive  implements  of  husbandry  are,  no  doubt,  made  of 
wood  and  stone ;  but  no  great  progress  in  agriculture  can 
be  made  until  metal  tools  are  employed. 

Use  of  iron. — Now  it  is  tolerably  clear  that  even 
pastoral  races  have  some  knowledge  of  working  in  metals. 
The  brazen  helmets  and  corselets  of  the  Homeric  heroes, 
their  swords  and  spears,  the  uncoined  money  (reckoned  by 
weight)  of  the  Jewish  patriarchs,  the  gold  and  silver  orna- 
ments of  the  African  tribes,  and  the  numerous  bronze  relics 
of  great  antiquity  constantly  dug  up,  all  point  to  the  fact 
that  the  art  of  working  in  metals  is  very  ancient.  But  it  is 
to  be  noticed  that  all  these  are  soft  metals,  which  can  be 

C62) 


INDUSTRY    AND    THE    GILD  63 

worked  with  the  stone  hammer,  and  beaten  out,  whilst  cold, 
into  the  required  shape.  The  real  revolution  comes  when 
men  learn  to  work  in  iron^  which  can  only  be  molded  by 
being  smelted  in  the  fire,  but  which,  when  so  worked,  is 
infinitely  harder  than  the  older  metals,  and  can  produce 
results  which  they  could  never  have  produced. 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  ground  for  conjecturing  that 
this  important  art  of  smelting  metals  did  not  originate  in 
Europe,  but  was  imported  from  the  East,  possibly  from 
Egypt,  where  iron  was  worked  in  very  early  times.  A 
brilliant  German  writer,  who  has  endeavoured  to  draw  a 
picture  of  primitive  Aryan  society  from  the  evidence  of 
language,  has  pointed  out  that  there  is  no  general  or  widely- 
spread  word  for  "iron"  among  the  Aryan-speaking  races. 
And  from  this  fact  he  draws  the  conclusion  that  the  knowl- 
edge of  iron  was  acquired  by  the  European  nations  after 
their  migration  into  western  Europe.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
it  is  quite  certain  that  the  European  races  have  long  ago 
surpassed  all  the  rest  of  the  world  in  the  art  of  working 
in  iron. 

The  smith. — It  is  evident,  then,  that  industry  (in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  term)  begins  with  the  important  craft 
of  the  smith,  from  which,  indeed,  almost  all  other  crafts 
may  be  said  to  have  sprung.  The  smith  it  was  who  forged 
and  mended  the  ploughshares  and  reaping-hooks  of  the  vil- 
lage, and,  still  more  important,  its  swords  and  spears.  He 
it  was  who,  as  later  improvements  came,  made  the  iron 
nails  which  took  the  place  of  the  old  bone  and  wooden 
skewers,  and  the  metal  knives  which  superseded  the  old 
stone  axes  and  sharp  flints,  who  substituted  the  iron  ham- 
mer for  the  rude  lump  of  quartz  with  a  shaft  stuck  through 
it.  If  any  one  with  the  necessary  knowledge  and  patience 
would  write  a  history  of  the  craft  of  the  smith,  tracing  its 
development  in  all  ages  and  in  all  countries,  he  would  do 
yeoman  service  to  the  cause  of  social  history.  What  little 
is  known  is  very  significent.    For  example,  it  seems  toler- 


64  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

ably  clear  that  for  many  ages  in  Europe  the  craft  was  in  the 
hands  of  travelling  stranglers,  perhaps  the  ancestors  oi 
our  modern  (gypsies,  who  jealously  guarded  their  valuable 
secrets  and  made  no  end  of  mystery  of  their  calling.  The 
many  legends  which  have  grown  up  round  the  calling  of  the 
smith  (of  which  the  Wayland  Smith  episode  in  Scott's 
Kcnilworth  is  a  skilful  adaptation)  are  fertile  matter  for  a 
thorough  investigation.  The  gypsy  idea  is,  of  course,  quite 
in  accordance  with  the  suggestion,  that  the  art  of  smelting 
iron  was  brought  into  Europe  by  strangers. 

Specialization  of  industry.— But,  as  might  have  been 
expected,  the  Indo-European  peoples,  with  that  capacity  for 
adaptation  which  has  been  one  of  the  great  secrets  of  their 
brilliant  success  in  the  world,  ultimately  acquired  the  art ; 
and  the  numerous  families  of  the  Smith  name  {Schmidt  in 
German,  Favre  in  French,  etc.)  testify  to  the  popularity  of 
the  pursuit.  Some  other  crafts  branched  off  from  it;  e.  g., 
the  carpenter,  who  worked  in  wood  with  the  smith's  nails, 
hammer,  and  chisel ;  the  cobbler,  who  borrowed  his  needle 
and  his  knife  ;  the  tailor,  who  adopted  his  shears  and  his 
needle ;  the  loriner  (or  leather  worker),  the  turner,  the 
zvheelwright,  the  cooper,  and  so  on.  Even  the  older  crafts 
felt  the  tendency  towards  specialization,  and,  instead  of 
each  family  doing  its  own  weaving,  thatching,  baking  and 
brewing,  we  get  these  crafts  undertaken  by  special  bodies, 
the  iveavers,  tilers,  bakers  and  brewers* 

Commerce.  —  But,  in  remembering  the  makers  or  pro- 
ducers, we  must  not  forget  another  equally  important  class 
of  industrial  workers;  \\z.,\.\\e  merchants  or  exchangers. 
Indeed,  there  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  exchange  pre- 
cedes production  in  the  order  of  ideas.  The  Australian 
savages  do  not  make  anything  worth  speaking  of,  but  they 
exchange  certain  of  their  natural  advantages  for  others 


*It  is  an  interesting  fact  that,  in  England  at  least,  the  earliest  pro- 
fessional brewers  (or  should  we  say  breweresses  ?}  were  Women. 


INDUSTRY   AND   THE   GILD  6$ 

which  they  need.  Thus,  a  pack  which  hunts  a  country 
abounding  in  a  peculiar  green  stone,  greatly  valued  for  the 
purpose  of  stone  axes,  will  send  some  of  its  young  men  with 
lumps  of  the  precious  articles,  to  exchange  against  the 
feathers  of  certain  birds  collected  by  another  tribe,  which 
are  greatly  valued  for  decorative  purposes.  These  primi- 
tive merchants  observe  certain  formalities  in  their  approach 
to  the  stranger  camp ;  and  are,  by  immemorial  custom, 
entitled  to  be  treated  as  guests,  not  as  etiemies.  The 
custom  of  making  presents  on  approaching  an  African 
chief  as  a  stranger  is  said  to  be  a  survival  of  this  ancient 
practice ;  for,  it  is  to  be  noted,  the  chief  always  observes  the 
etiquette  of  offering  return  gifts.  At  any  rate,  we  get  here 
the  earliest  appearances  of  the  law  of  the  market^  which  is 
again  a  notable  factor  in  the  history  of  civilization. 

Barter  and  sale. — Trade  is,  of  course,  for  long  ages 
conducted  in  its  primitive  form  by  means  of  barter,  i.  e.,  the 
exchange  of  one  article  against  another.  The  disadvantages 
of  such  a  form  are  obvious.  One  tribe  or  clan  may  have 
plenty  of  ostrich  feathers,  for  example,  to  dispose  of,  but 
may  not  require  the  only  articles  which  another  has  to  offer. 
It  is  clear  that  no  business  can  be  done  between  them. 
Inside  a  community  the  matter  could  be  adjusted  by  a  sort 
of  debtor  and  creditor  account ;  but  between  stranger,  pos- 
sibly rival  communities,  such  a  course  would  not  be  pos- 
sible. Occasionally  some  toketi,  such  as  the  African 
cowry  shell,  is  adopted  as  a  stajidard  of  value,  in  which 
payments  can  be  made.  But  the  objection  to  this  course  is 
that  these  articles  are  not  really  in  themselves  valuable,  and 
may,  therefore,  involve  the  community  which  takes  them 
in  a  loss.  A  great  advance  is  made  when  some  article  of 
universal  demand,  such  as  the  ox,  is  adopted  as  a 
standard  of  value.  We  then  get  the  difference  between 
barter  and  sale.  The  community  which  requires  the  ostrich 
feathers,  but  which  has  no  article  specially  required  by  the 
other  community  to  dispose  of,  pays  so  many  oxen   in 


66  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

exchange  for  the  feathers.  The  oxen  are  thus  the  price, 
which,  as  economists  tells  us,  is  value  expressed  i?i  lertns 
of  money.  A  curious  testimony  to  the  truth  of  this 
account  is  found  in  the  fact  that,  when  oxen  are  super- 
seded as  money  by  the  precious  metals,  which,  as  being 
more  portable  and  less  easily  subject  to  depreciation,  are 
really  more  suitable,  the  earliest  coins  are  often  found  to 
be  stamped  with  an  ox^s  head.  But  we  must  not  suppose 
that  coined  money  at  once  takes  the  place  of  oxen.  There 
is  an  intermediate  stage  of  uncoined  money,  which  passes 
by  weight.  Abundant  evidence  of  this  fact  survives  ;  but 
we  need  not  look  farther  than  our  own  word  pound,  which 
may  mean  either  a  weight  or  a  coin  of  a  particular  value. 

Organization  of  industry.— Having  now  seen  some- 
thing of  the  way  in  which  industry,  in  its  two  branches  of 
production  and  exchange,  arose,  we  turn,  in  dealing  with 
agriculture,  to  examine  how  industry  was  organized,  i.  e., 
what  institutiojis  were  developed  to  work  it. 

Village  CPaftsmen.— There  can  be  little  doubt  that,  at 
first,  there  was  an  attempt  to  fit  industry  into  the  village 
system.  Although  the  smith,  as  a  stranger,  would  not 
readily  be  absorbed  in  a  group  of  kinsmen,  although,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  we  generally  find  the  smithy  at  a  little 
distance  from  the  village,  yet  the  "village  blacksmith" 
became,  and,  indeed,  still  is,  a  recognized  village  institution. 
So  also  with  the  other  early  crafts.  The  carpenter,  cobbler 
and  tailor,  the  weaver,  tiler  and  baker,  are  in  Oriental 
countries  at  the  present  day,  and  formerly  in  European 
countries  were,  integral  parts  of  the  village  system.  As  for 
the  primitive  merchant,  we  find  him  in  the  humble  guise  of 
the  pedlar,  or  huckster,  going  about  with  his  pack  from 
village  to  village,  and  so  being,  if  not  a  villager,  at  least  a 
connecting  link  between  villages. 

The  market. — But,  as  industry  became  more  and  more 
specialized,  as  new  crafts  developed  out  of  the  old,  it 
gradually  became  clear  that  more  rapid  progress  was  made 


INDUSTRY   AND   THE   GILD  67 

and  better  work  done  if  the  workers  in  a  particular  craft 
collected  together  in  a  centre,  perhaps  specially  suited  for 
the  particular  industry;  and  thus  we  get  the  beginning  of 
that  tendency  for  industry  to  gravitate  towards  towns,  which 
is  so  marked  a  feature  of  modern  industrial  life.  It  may  be 
that  the  gradual  collection  of  craftsmen  formed  the  town,  or 
it  may  be  that  the  existence  of  a  fortified  town  attracted  the 
craftsmen.  That  is  a  much-disputed  question.  But  it  is 
tolerably  certain  that  one  of  the  earliest  institutions  in  con- 
nection with  towns  was  the  tnarket,  and  that  the  existence 
of  the  market  was  closely  connected  with  the  development 
of  industry.  The  neighboring  villages  would  not  want  to 
come  to  market  for  agricultural  produce  ;  but  they  would 
want  to  come  for  the  produce  of  what  is  specially  known  as 
"industry." 

Now,  the  very  essence  of  the  market  is  that  it  is  neutral 
growtd,  on  which  the  members  of  different  communities  can 
meet  without  trespassing  on  one  another's  territories.  As  its 
name  implies,  it  was  frequently  on  the  tnarch  or  boundary  of 
two  or  more  districts.  And,  whether  it  was  so  or  not  in  any 
particular  instance,  it  was  essential  that  it  should  be  a  place 
of  peace.  The  existence  of  the  market  cross  in  later  days 
shows  that  the  Church  took  the  market  under  her  special 
protection.  And,  also  later,  kings  and  emperors  made  a 
special  point  of  protecting  the  peace  of  their  markets.  How 
the  peace  was  guarded  in  the  ancient  days  before  Church 
and  State,  it  is  difficult  to  say.  In  savage  times  the  essential 
point  is  that  seller  and  buyer  shall  never  actually  come  into 
contact.  The  seller  brings  his  article  near  the  strange 
camp,  lays  it  down  on  the  ground  in  full  view,  and  retires. 
The  intending  purchaser  comes  out,  inspects  the  article, 
places  beside  it  what  he  is  willing  to  give  in  exchange,  and 
also  retires.  The  seller  once  more  comes  up,  inspects  the 
proffered  exchange,  and,  if  satisfied,  takes  it  away,  leaving 
his  own  article  to  be  fetched  by  the  purchaser.  If  he  is 
dissatisfied  with  the  offer,  he  takes  his  own  article  away. 


68  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

Needless  to  observe,  savage  barter  is  a  trifle  tedious ;  but 
time  is  of  no  value  to  savages,  who,  indeed,  do  not  under- 
stand what  it  means.  In  patriarchal  times,  the  "gods  of  the 
market  place"  probably  are  supposed,  in  some  mysterious 
way,  to  guard  the  peace  of  the  market.  At  any  rate,  the 
bazaar,  which  is  the  Oriental  market,  is  a  typical  feature  of 
town  life  in  patriarchal  countries  at  the  present  day. 

The  gild.— But  it  is  totally  contrary  to  the  ideas  of 
primitive  man  to  live  as  an  individual,  isolated  and  unpro- 
tected, in  a  large  society.  We  have  seen  that  pastoral 
pursuits  developed  the  tribe,  with  its  strong  blood  bond,  its 
mutual  protection  of  its  members  by  the  blood  feud  and  its 
ancestor  worship.  We  have  seen,  too,  that  agriculture  led 
to  the  existence  of  the  clan,  with  its  strongly  organized 
family  system,  its  elaborate  arrangements  of  land  occupation, 
and  its  reciprocal  duties  of  protection  and  service  between 
chief  and  followers.  Just  in  the  same  way,  the  appearance 
of  industrial  pursuits  produced  the  gild.  The  craftsman, 
finding  himself  in  a  strange  place,  cut  off  from  his  own 
kindred,  formed  with  his  fellows  an  association  resembling 
as  closely  as  possible  the  association  of  kindred  which  he 
had  left  behind  him.  Perhaps  at  first  it  was  merely  a  peace- 
association,  a.  frith-gild,  as  the  Saxons  called  it ;  then  it  took 
on  a  religious  character,  doubtless  in  imitation  of  the  old 
ancestor  worship  of  the  clan.  The  medieval  gild  always 
had  its  patron  saint ;  and,  if  its  members  did  not  really 
believe  themselves  to  be  descended  from  their  patron  saint, 
they  often  spoke  as  if  they  did.  Finally,  the  gild  became 
more  industrial  in  character  ;  busying  itself  more  and  more 
with  such  matters  as  the  regulation  of  work  and  prices,  the 
inspection  of  workshops,  the  fixing  of  measures  and  qualities, 
the  exclusion  of  strangers,  and  so  on.  But  the  more  we 
study  the  gild,  the  more  we  see  its  likeness  to  the  old  clan. 
Like  the  clan,  it  was  strongly  hereditary.  The  best  title  to 
admission  to  the  full  privileges  of  a  gild  was  the  fact  that 
the  applicant's  father  was,  or  had  been,  a  member.     Failing 


INDUSTRY   AND    THE   GILD  69 

birth,  apprenticeship  was  the  only  alternative.  But  appren- 
ticeship is  very  like  adoption.  In  the  days  of  gilds,  the 
apprentice  lived  in  his  master's  house,  fed  at  his  master's 
table,  shared  in  his  worship,  was  clothed  and  taught  by  him, 
just  like  a  son.  Just  as  the  member  of  a  clan  took  the  name 
of  the  founder,  and  put  before  it  or  after  it  some  sound 
which  indicated  "son  of,"  so  the  member  of  the  gild  called 
himself  by  the  name  of  his  craft.  While  the  clansman 
called  himself  "  i'J^.rDougall,"  or  "Bill/«^,"  or  ap  Tudor," 
or  "^i?«hadad,"  the  craftsman  called  himself  "Smith," 
"Turner,"  "Carpenter,"  and  so  on.  In  fact,  it  is  said  by 
some  competent  observers  that  the  Indian  caste  system  is 
merely  an  elaboration  of  hereditary  craft-gilds.  Moreover, 
the  gild  in  later  days  provided  schools  and  orphanages  for 
the  children  of  its  members,  attended  their  funerals,  pro- 
vided masses  for  their  souls,  spoke  of  its  members  as 
"brethren,"  had  an  "elder  man"  {Ealdorman)  for  chief, 
settled  disputes  amongst  its  members,  and  forbade  its 
members  to  compete  with  one  another,  just  as  a  well- 
conducted  association  of  kinsmen  would  do.  Finally,  on  its 
strongly  developed  social  side,  in  its  frequent  drinkings, 
feastings  and  merrymakings,  the  medieval  gild  strongly 
resembled  a  great  family  group. 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  patriarchal  society  had  succeeded, 
more  or  less  completely,  in  making  provision  in  its  own  way 
for  the  needs  of  advancing  civilization.  As  each  new  de- 
velopment of  human  ingenuity  brought  a  new  occupation  to 
light,  patriarchal  society  was  equal  to  the  task  of  organizing 
itself  to  receive  and  carry  it  on.  Obviously,  patriarchal 
society  rested  on  principles  which  are,  or  were,  very  deep 
in  human  nature,  very  capable  of  making  themselves  felt 
under  all  sorts  of  circumstances.  Once  more,  as  we  are 
leaving  the  subject,  it  will  be  well  to  summarize  briefly  the 
distinctive  features  in  which  patriarchal  society  differed  from 
modern  or  political  society,  the  consideration  of  which  lies 


70  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

immediately  before  us.  We  cannot  too  clearly  realize  the 
contrast ;  the  more  clearly  we  realize  it  the  more  shall  we 
really  understand  modern  conditions. 

1.  PeFSOnal  basis. — Now-a-days  we  regard /^rrj/cry  or 
locality  as  the  great  basis  of  society.  But,  as  we  have  seen, 
despite  the  fact  that  nomadism  or  wandering  life  practically 
ceased  with  the  adoption  of  agriculture,  patriarchal  society 
always  considered  itself  as  a  body  constituted  by  race,  not 
by  territory.  Even  the  gild,  as  we  have  seen,  regarded 
itself  as  a  brotherhood,  not  as  a  mere  neighbourhood. 
Though,  doubtless,  the  members  of  a  particular  gild  often 
lived  near  to  one  another  in  the  same  town,  they  lived 
together  because  they  were  members  of  the  gild  ;  they  were 
not  members  of  the  gild  because  they  lived  near  together. 
Still  more  obviously  are  the  clatt  and  the  tribe  personal,  not 
territorial  associations. 

2.  ExelUSiveness.— This  feature  of  patriarchal  society 
is  a  natural  result  of  the  former.  Normally  speaking,  the 
only  means  of  obtaining  membership  of  a  race  is  by  being 
born  into  that  race.  Patriarchal  society  went  so  far  as  to 
admit  the  case  oi  adoption,  or  fictitious  birth,  under  carefully 
guarded  rules.  But  it  would  have  recoiled  in  horror  from 
the  casual  hospitality  which  a  modern  State  extends  to  all 
tolerable  immigrants.  Modern  States  believe  in  large  num- 
bers ;  patriarchal  communities  do  not.  Some  people  are 
inclined  to  think  that  patriarcal  society  was  right.  It  is  a 
question  of  whether  it  is  preferable  to  maintain  purity  of 
race  and  be  extinguished  as  an  independent  community,  or 
to  admit  alien  blood  and  prosper.  The  history  of  the  world 
shows  that  these  are  the  inevitable  alternatives.  Racial 
exclusiveness  wrecked  the  so-called  "City  State"  of  the 
Greeks ;  it  very  nearly  wrecked  the  budding  destinies  of 
Rome.  All  the  world  over  the  rule  applies ;  the  pure- 
blooded  races  are  weak,  the  mixed  races  are  strong. 

3.  Fixity  of  Custom.—  Custom  plays,  as  we  shall  see,  a 
large  part  in  modern  life ;  but  modern  custom  is  continually 


INDUSTRY    AND    THE   GILD  7T 

being  modified  and  changed.  The  custom  of  patriarchal 
society  is  rigid.  No  doubt  it  changes  a  Httle  ;  but  a  society 
whose  chief  moral  duty  is  to  continue  the  traditions  of  its 
ancestors  is  hardly  likely  to  admit  novelty  if  it  can  help  it. 
Sir  Henry  Maine  tells  a  delightful  story  of  an  Indian  village 
which  had  had  a  water  supply  provided  for  it  by  a  paternal 
British  Government.  The  villagers  were  notified,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  of  the  official  regulations  laid  down  for  the  proper 
use  of  the  water.  An  East  End  district  of  London  would 
be  only  too  glad  to  get  a  good  water  supply  on  such  terms. 
But  to  the  patriarchal  society  of  India  the  notion  that  cus- 
toms could  be  manufactured  by  an  official  pen  was  simply 
incredible.  And  it  was  not  until  a  wise  official  induced  the 
village  elders  (by  what  means  is  not  stated)  to  persuade  the 
rank  and  file  that  the  rules  in  question  were  really  of 
immemorial  antiquity,  though  their  existence  had  only  just 
been  discovered,  that  the  difficulty  was  solved.  Even  the 
gild  prided  itself  on  the  antiquity  of  its  statutes,  though  the 
gild  is,  of  course,  the  most  modern  form  of  patriarchal 
society.  The  caste  system  of  India  is  the  extreme  outcome 
of  the  rigidity  of  patriarchal  custom.  When  we  speak  of 
the  "unchanging  East,"  we  allude  to  countries  which  are 
still  in  the  grip  of  patriarchal  principles. 

As  a  consequence  of  its  unchanging  character,  patriarchal 
society  is  also,  to  a  great  extent,  non- competitive.  Competition 
involves  innovation  at  every  turn  ;  the  successful  competitor 
usually  succeeds  because  he  does  things  in  a  superior  way  of 
his  own.  Doubtless  it  is  also  possible  to  succeed  by  doing 
things  in  the  same  way  as  one's  rivals,  but  doing  them  better. 
And  to  this  extent,  presumably,  patriarchal  society  is  com- 
petitive. But  the  trade  offences  known  as  "  engrossing  "  and 
"forestalling,"  which  are  recognized  in  quite  the  last  stage  of 
patriarchal  society,  are  amusing  illustrations  of  the  limited 
extent  to  which  that  society  allowed  competition.  "Fore- 
stalling" merely  means  buying  earlier  than  your  neighbours, 
in  order  to  control   the  supply  of  commodities   and  get 


72  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

better  prices.  As  its  name  implies,  it  is  an  attempt  to  buy 
goods  before  they  reach  the  market.  "Engrossing"  is 
simply  dealing  in  a  large  number  of  articles,  instead  of 
observing  the  customary  restrictions,  in  order  to  be  able  to 
sell  cheap,  and  so  attract  custom.  It  is  pathetic  to  think 
that  the  harmless  and  indeed  useful  "grocer"  of  modern 
times  is,  in  origin,  a  member  of  a  criminal  class. 

4.  Communalism.— Observe,  we  do  not  say  Com- 
fnunisnt.  Patriarchal  society  is  not  communistic,  \.  e.,  it  does 
not  refuse  to  recognize  individual  rights,  nor  does  it  pool  the 
productions  of  its  members  and  divide  them  equally.  But 
it  is  communal,  in  the  sense  that  it  is  always  organized  in 
groups.  The  smallest  group  of  which  it  takes  direct  notice 
is  the  household,  which  is  probably  very  much  larger  than 
our  modern  household,  and  may  contain  two  or  three  gen- 
erations, with  wives,  apprentices  and  serfs.  Within  that 
household  the  higher  authority  does  not  penetrate.  The 
same  rule  is  observed  in  an  ascending  scale.  What  the 
household  is  to  the  clan  or  gild  that  the  clan  is  to  the  tribe. 
With  us,  the  supreme  authority  can  control  directly  the 
actions  of  any  individual.  The  reason  for  that  change  will 
shortly  appear.  But  in  patriarchal  society  the  tribal  chief, 
after  the  break-up  of  the  tribe  into  clans,  communicates 
directly  with  the  clan  chiefs  only,  except  that  he  probably 
has  a  clan  of  his  own  of  which  he  is  tribal  head  as  well  as 
clan  chief.  The  clan  chief,  likewise,  communicates  only 
with  the  heads  of  households  within  his  clan  ;  to  the  heads 
of  households  belongs  the  control  over  the  dwellers  within 
their  walls.  But  we  really  err  in  comparing  the  position  of 
any  patriarchal  authority  with  that  of  a  modern  State  official. 
The  latter  is  wielding  the  power  of  a  despotic  ruler,  whether 
that  ruler  be  an  individual  or  a  parliament.  The  former  is 
merely  administering  the  customs  of  his  race. 


Type  III  —  Modern  (Political)  Society 

CHAPTER    VIII 
The    State   and   Feudalism 

The  origin  of  the  State,  or  Political  Society,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  development  of  the  art  of  warfare.  It  may 
be  very  sad  that  this  should  be  so  ;  but  it  is  unquestion- 
ably true.  Historically  speaking,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
difficulty  in  proving  that  all  political  communities  of  the 
modern  type  owe  their  existence  to  successful  warfare.  As 
a  natural  consequence,  they  are  forced  to  be  organized  on 
military  principles,  tempered,  doubtless,  by  a  survival  of 
older  (patriarchal)  ideas.  Happily,  there  is  a  good  side,  as 
well  as  a  bad  one,  to  military  life. 

Development  of  wapfare.— The  question  may  natur- 
ally be  asked  at  this  stage — How  came  military  principles 
to  receive  such  a  startling  development  after  society  had, 
apparently,  succeeded  in  organizing  itself  on  more  peaceful 
lines  ?  Fighting  there  had  always  been,  of  course ;  wars 
between  tribe  and  tribe,  clan  and  clan,  even  between 
village  and  village,  town  and  town.  But  this  was  more  in 
the  nature  of  a  feud,  a  sort  of  standing  quarrel  which 
broke  out  again  and  again,  and  then  slumbered  for  a 
while ;  it  was  nothing  like  the  organized  and  determined 
warfare  which  resulted  in  the  formation  of  States.  It  may 
be  described  as  amateur  rather  than  professional  fighting. 

Inepsase  of  population.— Although  we  cannot  speak 
with  certainty  as  to  the  causes  of  this  development,  it  is 

(73) 


74  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

not  difficult  to  suggest  one  or  two  facts  which  may  have 
led  to  it.  First  and  foremost  comes  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation^ with  its  consequent  pressure  on  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence. This  increase  is  always,  under  normal  circum- 
stances, steadily  going  on ;  and  it  is  dealt  with  in  various 
ways.  Sometimes  a  pestilence  breaks  out ;  and  the  super- 
abundant population,  enfeebled  by  short  allowance  of  food, 
is  swept  away  by  disease.  Sometimes  wholesale  migra- 
tions take  place  to  less  thickly  populated  districts  ;  this 
may  be  regarded  as  a  real  remedy,  though  perhaps  only  a 
temporary  one,  for  the  trouble.  Sometimes,  again,  a  great 
new  invention  enables  a  largely  increased  food  supply  to  be 
produced  ;  the  changes  from  hunting  life  to  pastoral  life, 
and  again  from  pastoral  life  to  agriculture,  are  examples. 
Finally,  war  may  break  out  on  a  large  scale ;  and  the 
weaker  peoples  may  be  either  exterminated  or  (more 
probably)  reduced  to  subjection  by  the  stronger. 

Increase  of  wealth. — Another  cause  may  have  been 
the  great  increase  of  realized  wealth  attendant  upon  suc- 
cessful agriculture,  and,  still  more,  industry.  Pastoral 
wealth  has  this  advantage,  that  it  can  be  moved  about 
with  tolerable  ease.  A  weak  tribe  can  fold  up  its  tents, 
and  drive  its  cattle  and  sheep  out  of  harm's  way.  But 
the  wealth  of  the  husbandman  cannot  be  so  disposed  of. 
His  wealth  is  in  his  fields,  which  he  has  patiently  culti- 
vated, and  in  his  bams  and  presses  which  he  has  filled 
with  corn  and  wine.  He  has  built  himself  a  permanent 
house,  and  he  will  not  leave  it  while  a  chance  of  safety,  or 
even  of  existence,  remains.  He  is  a  very  tempting  bait  to 
the  military  adventurer.  Still  more  is  the  craftsman,  with 
his  rich  store  of  wealth,  a  tempting  object  of  plunder. 
The  sack  of  an  industrial  town,  with  its  shops  and  its 
stores  of  goods,  is  the  dream  of  the  freebooter.  Wass 
fiir  Plunder!  was  Bliicher's  exclamation  when  he  was 
shown  London  from  the  dome  of  St.  Paul's.  It  was  the  old 
instinct  of  the  professional  soldier. 


THE    STATE    AND    FEUDALISM  75 

ImpPOveraent  in  weapons.— Once  more,  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  the  improvement  in  the  art  of  working  in 
metals  did  much  to  stimulate  the  military  spirit.  The 
superiority  of  iron,  still  more  of  steel  weapons  and  armour, 
over  the  old  wooden  bows  and  arrows  and  leather  shield 
and  corselet,  would  give  a  natural  impetus  to  warfare. 
Above  all,  with  the  tendency  towards  specialization  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  one  of  the  master  principles  of  develop- 
ment, this  improvement  in  the  means  of  warfare  would 
tend  to  produce  a  special  military  class,  the  professional 
warrior  of  the  modern  world.  In  primitive  times  every 
man  was  a  soldier  ;  as  civilization  progressed,  the  bulk 
of  people  became  interested  in  other  things,  and  fighting 
became  the  work  of  specialists.  This  fact  is  directly  con- 
nected with  the  origin  of  the  State. 

The  German  wap-bands.— In  the  interesting  account 
given  by  Tacitus  of  our  Teutonic  forefathers  in  their  ances- 
tral homes,  we  notice  one  very  significant  feature.  Not 
only  does  the  historian  distinguish  between  the  princeps, 
or  tribal  chief,  who  was  chosen  for  his  noble  birth,  and  the 
dux,  or  war  leader,  who  was  chosen  for  his  valour  ;  he 
shows  us  the  latter  surrounded  by  a  band  of  adventurous 
companions,  who  took  no  part  in  the  ordinary  pastoral 
life  of  the  tribe,  but  were  constantly  engaged  in  warfare, 
either  in  defense  of  their  own  tribe  or  in  plundering  expe- 
ditions against  strange  tribes.  These  "companions,"  as 
they  are  called,  were  fed  at  the  leader's  table,  were 
furnished  with  food  and  garments  by  the  women  of  his 
household,  and  shared  the  booty  of  their  leader's  expedi- 
tions. The  devoted  loyalty  which  they  displayed  towanis 
their  leader  is  described  in  a  spirited  and  well-known  pas- 
sage. They  counted  it  a  disgrace  to  leave  the  field  alive 
if  he  was  dead ;  their  dead  bodies  were  found  thickly 
piled  around  his  in  the  disastrous  day  of  defeat.  It  is 
probable  that,  at  first,  this  band  of  companions  was  com- 
posed mainly  of  the  kinsmen  of  the  leader,  his  gesiths,  aa 


76  A   SHORT    HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

the  Saxons  called  them  ;  but  ultimately  they  became  simply 
volunteers  who  joined  the  band  from  love  of  adventure 
and  a  military  life.  They  were  the  thanes  (or  servants)  of 
the  heretoch  (or  host-leader.) 

Foundation  of  states.— A  Stale  is  founded  when  one 
of  these  host-leaders  with  his  band  of  warriors  gets  perma- 
nent control  of  a  definite  territory  of  a  considerable  size. 
And,  practically  speaking,  this  always  occurs  in  one  of  two 
ways. 

Consolidation. — The  host-leader,  after  firmly  estab- 
lishing his  position  as  ruler  of  his  own  tribe,  extends  his 
authority  over  neighbouring  tribes,  until  he  becomes  ruler 
of  a  large  territory.  This  is  what  seems  to  have  happened 
in  the  England  of  the  ninth  century,  when  the  so-called 
"tribal  kingdoms"  of  the  Heptarchy,  after  fluctuating  for 
many  years  between  the  Bretwaldaship  of  the  various 
tribal  chiefs,  became  more  or  less  consolidated  by  conquest 
in  the  time  of  Egbert.  The  same  movement  showed  itself 
also  in  the  neighbouring  country  of  Scandinavia,  where, 
also  in  the  ninth  century,  the  innumerable  tribes  became 
gradually  consolidated,  as  the  result  of  hard  fighting,  into 
the  three  historic  kingdoms  of  Norway,  Denmark  and 
Sweden,  under  Harold  Fairhair,  Gorm  the  Old,  and  Eric 
of  Upsala,  who,  as  the  Heimskringla  strikingly  puts  it, 
subdued  all  rival  chiefs  "with  scatt  (taxes),  and  duties, 
and  lordships."  Much  the  same  appears  also  to  have  been 
done  in  the  gradual  consolidation  of  the  Celtic  tribes  of 
Scotland  under  the  line  of  Malcolm  Canmore,  and  of  the 
tribes  of  Wales  under  the  hereditary  Princes  who  were 
found  to  be  ruling  the  country  at  the  Norman  Conquest. 
In  Ireland  the  trouble  was  that  no  successful  warrior 
succeeded  in  making  permanent  a  powerful  dynasty.  And, 
in  central  Europe,  the  too  ambitious  efforts  of  the  Prankish 
warriors,  Clovis  and  his  successors,  though  brilliantly  suc- 
cessful at  first,  resulted  finally  in  a  similar  period  of 
anarchy,  which  is  known  by  the  expressive  name  of  the 


THE   STATE   AND    FEUDALISM  77 

"Dark  Ages."  In  fact,  the  State  formed  by  consolidation 
is  always  rather  liable  to  break  up  into  its  former  elements. 

MigPation. — Or  a  State  is  founded  by  the  successful 
migration  and  conquest  by  a  band  of  warriors  to  and  of  a 
strange  country.  This  was  the  history,  in  very  early  times, 
of  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom  of  Lombardy  (a  Teutonic 
conquest  of  a  Latin  land)  ;  likewise  of  the  Visigothic  king- 
dom of  Spain.  Somewhat  later  it  was  the  brilliant  history 
of  the  Normans  or  Northmen,  who,  in  the  ninth  century, 
became  the  ruling  power  in  Russia ;  in  the  tenth  founded 
the  practically  independent  Dutchy  of  Normandy ;  in  the 
eleventh  the  new  kingdom  of  England  ;  in  the  twelfth  the 
kingdom  of  the  Sicilies,  and  the  short-lived  kingdom  of 
Jerusalem. 

Charaetep  of  the  State. — The  new  type  of  community 
formed  by  these  events  differed  fundamentally  from  that 
which  preceded  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  essentially 
territorial  in  character.  Though  its  rulers  for  some  time 
continued  to  call  themselves  by  tribal  names  ("Kings  of 
the  English,"  "  Kings  of  the  French,"  and  so  on),  in 
reality  the  limits  of  their  authority  were  the  limits  of  their 
territories.  Whosoever  lived,  nay,  whosoever  happened  to 
be,  within  their  dominions,  was  their  subject,  their  subditus, 
or  subdued  man,  bound  to  obey  their  commands,  and 
especially  bound  to  obey  their  call  to  arms.  The  life  of 
the  new  community  was  military  allegiance,  that  faithful 
obedience  to  the  orders  of  a  commander  which  had  enabled 
the  conqueror,  with  the  aid  of  his  devoted  followers,  to 
place  his  foot  on  the  necks  of  the  conquered  tribes.  Race 
feeling,  no  doubt,  long  counted  for  much ;  no  prudent 
ruler  could  afford  to  neglect  it.  But  it  was  no  longer  the 
essential  bond  of  unity.  To  begin  with,  the  ruler  and  his 
chief  followers  were  probably  of  different  blood,  perhaps 
even  of  different  religion  and  speech,  from  the  mass  of  the 
subject  population.  Apart  from  this  fact,  the  successful 
warrior,  knowing  the  value  of  numbers,  was  always  trying 


78  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

to  import  new  followers,  about  whose  race  he  cared  little, 
provided  only  that  they  could  be  relied  on  to  do  good 
service,  either  with  the  sword  or  the  pen.  Finally,  being 
generally  a  man  of  superior  enlightenment,  the  new  ruler 
was  often  anxious  to  throw  open  the  country  to  foreign 
adventurers,  whether  merchants,  ecclesiastics  or  teachers, 
believing  that  his  fame  and  wealth  would  thereby  be 
increased.  This  policy  was,  as  is  well  known,  the  cause 
of  much  trouble  in  the  early  days  of  the  State ;  but  the 
new  spirit  ultimately  got  its  way. 

New  type  of  religion.— Again,  the  exclusiveness  of 
the  old  tribal  systems  was  rudely  broken  down.  It  had 
rested  mainly,  as  we  have  seen,  towards  the  end  of  its 
history,  on  the  system  of  ancestor  worship.  But  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  western  State  was  curiously  coincident  with 
the  triumph  of  a  new  type  of  religion,  the  chief  character- 
istic of  which  was  universality.  It  may  sound,  at  first 
hearing,  ridiculous  to  associate  the  meek  religion  of  Christ 
with  the  aggressive  military  institution  of  the  State.  Yet 
it  is  quite  certain  that  Christianity  had  a  great  deal  to  do 
with  breaking  down  tribal  prejudice,  and  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  great  political  communities.  To  take  the  first 
and  most  glaring  example  which  presents  itself:  The  con- 
version of  Clovis  to  Christianity  was  intimately  connected 
with  the  formation  of  the  brilliant,  if  short-lived,  Prankish 
empire.  The  heathen  Burgundians  and  Saxons  were  over- 
come by  the  Christian  Franks.  In  the  name  of  Christianity, 
Charles  the  Great  rolled  back  the  tide  of  Saracen  invasion 
from  the  Pyrenees,  and  established  the  frontiers  of  Chris- 
tendom. Though  Christianity  in  its  earliest  days  had 
been  a  mission  to  the  poor  and  lowly,  its  great  conquests 
in  northern  and  western  Europe  were  due  to  the  conver- 
sion of  kings  and  princes.  The  conversion  of  ^thelbirht 
of  Kent  was  the  signal  for  the  conversion  of  England. 
Christianity  passed  from  Court  to  Court  of  the  Heptarchic 
kingdoms.      And    Christianity    well  repaid    the  favour  of 


THE   STATE    AND    FEUDALISM  79 

princes.  Under  the  cry  of  "one  church  and  one  king," 
the  older  tribal  divisions  were  ultimately  wiped  out,  and 
England  became  one  nation  ;  with  Church  and  State  in 
intimate  alliance.  Even  more  obviously  had  Mahom- 
medanism  the  result  of  breaking  down  tribal  divisions,  and 
establishing  mighty  kingdoms,  like  the  kingdom  of  Akbar 
in  India,  the  kingdom  of  Ismail  in  Persia,  and  the  kingdom 
of  Mahomet  at  Constantinople. 

The  new  nobility.— Once  more,  the  new  political 
organism,  the  State,  no  longer  regarded  custofn  as  its  guid- 
ing star.  By  its  very  nature  militarism  is  competitive ;  for 
competition  means  strife,  and  strife  is  of  the  very  essence  of 
war.  Mimic  warfare  may  be  conducted  according  to  fixed 
tradition  ;  but,  in  that  case,  it  is  rather  sport  than  war.  Real 
war  is  a  death-struggle,  and  each  combatant  will  strain  every 
nerve  to  gain  the  advantage.  If  any  one  will  show  him  a 
new  dodge  for  defeating  his  enemy,  he  will  take  it  and  be 
thankful.  He  will  not  ask  if  it  is  consecrated  by  the  wisdom 
of  his  ancestors.  Even  the  very  modern  humanitarian  spirit 
has  only  succeeded  in  making  slight  inroads  upon  the  fierce 
competition  of  war ;  and  if  it  succeeds  in  making  further  or 
serious  inroads,  it  will  destroy  war,  or  reduce  it  to  the  level 
of  a  sport,  which  is,  of  course,  its  object.  The  founders  of 
the  State  were,  as  we  have  seen,  all  successful  warriors,  who 
had  won  success  by  new  combinations,  new  methods,  daring 
disregard  of  tradition.  It  was  hardly  probable  that,  under 
their  regime,  the  old  traditional,  customary  life  would  be 
continued.  Their  watchword  was  ability,  not  custom.  If 
they  saw  a  man  who  could  fight  well,  or  write  well,  or  sing 
well,  they  called  him  to  their  courts,  regardless  of  his  race 
or  social  rank.  They  knew  that  their  position  was  pre- 
carious ;  they  could  not  afford  to  leave  any  stone  unturned 
to  ensure  their  safety.  And  one  of  their  surest  measures 
was  to  surround  themselves  with  the  ablest  men  on  whom 
they  could  lay  their  hands.  All  over  Europe  the  break-up 
of  patriarchal  society  is  marked  by  a  striking  change  in  the 


8o  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

idea  of  nobility.  The  old  nobility  of  birth,  and  zvealth,  the 
members  of  the  sacred  families  of  the  tribe  and  clan,  the 
great  lords  of  cattle,  are  replaced  by  the  royal  nobility,  whose 
hall  mark  is  the  choice  of  the  king.  In  the  Barbarian  Codes 
which  tell  us  so  much  of  early  Teutonic  society,  the 
Atheling,  or  hereditary  noble,  is  displaced  by  the  antnistion, 
or  royal  servant.  The  latter  may  even  have  been  at  one 
time  a  slave  ;  it  is  enough  that  the  king  has  recognized  him 
as  a  conies,  a  member  of  his  band  of  followers.  In  England 
the  tribal  ealdornian,  in  Scotland  the  Ri  or  Mormaer,  give 
way  before  the  Earl  or  simple  thane.  Doubtless,  in  many 
cases,  the  change  was  more  apparent  than  real.  Doubtless 
the  tribal  chief  was  willing  to  accept  a  title  of  nobility  from 
the  king ;  just  as  the  Irish  chiefs  of  the  fifteenth  century,  the 
O'Donnells  and  the  O'Neills,  became  the  Irish  earls  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  the  Tyrconnels  and  the  Tyrones.  But  the 
difference  was  none  the  less  significant ;  and  it  paved  the 
way  for  further  change.  It  marked  the  triumph  of  the  State 
over  the  older  patriarchal  society- 
Feudalism. — And,  finally,  the  State  was  individual,  not 
communal.  Again  we  must  be  careful  not  to  misunderstand 
terms.  The  dream  of  the  despot,  who  would  like  to  govern 
every  man  in  his  dominions  by  the  immediate  action  of  his 
caprice,  is,  happily,  never  realized.  But  the  tendency  of  the 
State,  from  its  very  inception,  was  to  break  down  all  inter- 
mediate barriers  between  itself  and  its  individual  subjects. 
Every  wise  ruler  is,  however,  aware  that  this  can  only  be 
done  by  degrees.  The  warriors  who  founded  successful 
States,  whether  they  were  alien  adventurers  or  enterprising 
war  leaders  of  neighbouring  tribes,  found  various  degrees  of 
authority  in  existences  among  their  subjects,  exercised  by 
men  who  had  been  accustomed  to  deference,  if  not  actually 
to  obedience.  These  men  were  rarely  dispossessed  by  the 
conqueror,  unless  they  persisted  in  refusing  all  overtures. 
The  conqueror  merely  insisted  that  they  should  acknowledge 
their  authority  to  be  derived  from  him.    This  seemed  to  be 


THE   STATE    AND    FEUDALISM  8l 

such  a  purely  theoretical  matter  that  the  transaction  was 
usually  attended  with  little  difficulty.  Even  where  the 
demand  of  fealty  or  faithfulness  was  accompanied  by  a 
demand  for  tribute,  there  was  little  practical  difficulty ;  the 
conquered  chief  reckoned  with  shrewd  accuracy  on  getting 
the  money  out  of  his  followers,  the  humbler  members  of  his 
tribe  or  clan.  If  the  conqueror  chose  to  regard  the  land  oc- 
cupied by  his  tribe  or  clan  as  a  gift  or  trust  for  the  conqueror 
himself,  it  did  not  seem  to  matter  much  ;  the  important  point 
was  that  the  tribe  or  the  clan  still  kept  its  land.  Where  the 
native  chief  was  irreconcilable,  or  had  been  killed  in  the 
struggle,  the  conqueror  put  one  of  his  own  "companions," 
his  comes  or  thane,  into  his  place  ;  and  thus,  of  course, 
obtained  a  really  stronger  hold  on  the  conquered  territory. 
Quite  naturally,  the  conqueror's  immediate  vassals  (as  we 
may  now  begin  to  call  them)  found  it  convenient  to  repeat 
the  same  process  with  their  inferiors.  We  have  seen,  in 
fact,  that  there  were  the  germs  of  such  a  relationship  in  the 
practice  of  cattle  lending  practiced  by  patriarchal  society 
(p.  34).  But  then  the  adoption  of  agriculture  made  land  the 
important  factor  in  society  ;  and  so  loans  of  land  became 
the  signs  of  subordination.  Sometimes  the  transaction  was 
genuine ;  as  where  one  man  loaned  to  another  land  which 
he  was  really  entitled  to  keep  for  himself  Very  often, 
however,  it  was  merely  fictitious  ;  as  when  the  inferior 
yielded  up  his  own  land  to  his  superior,  and  received  it 
back  again  from  him  as  a  loan.  The  practice,  known 
technically  as  commendation,  was  very  common  in  Conti- 
nental Europe  in  the  Dark  Ages,  and  was  primarily  due 
to  the  fact  that,  in  times  of  disturbance,  the  best  chance  for 
the  weak  man  is  to  acknowledge  himself  the  vassal  of  a 
strong  man,  who  will  protect  him.  But  the  tendency 
spread  beyond  cattle  and  land.  The  customs  of  a  gild,  or  a 
number  of  gilds,  their  cherished  rights  of  controlling  their 
own  members  and  excluding  strangers  from  the  town,  came 
to  be  held  as  privileges  granted  by  a  ruler ;  and  so  town 


82  A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

life  was  brought  within  the  same  idea.  Finally,  even  such 
a  thing  as  spiritual  ofiice  (with  the  emoluments  attaching 
thereto)  was  held  as  a  gift  or  loan  from  a  superior ;  and  so 
indeed  the  technical  name  for  such  a  gift  or  loan,  a  benefice, 
came  to  be  specially  associated  with  spiritual  oflice.  Thus 
the  whole  social  organism  gradually  assumed  what  we  call 
a  feudal  aspect,  in  some  respects  resembling  the  old 
patriarchal  organization  of  groups  within  groups,  but  differ- 
ing from  it  in  the  important  principle  that  the  rights  of 
the  individual  were  no  longer  acquired  by  birthright,  by 
membership  of  a  social  group,  but  were  at  least  deemed 
to  be  the  grant  of  a  superior,  in  return  for  promised  service. 
In  the  higher  ranks,  of  course,  that  service  was  military ; 
and  in  this  the  new  system  showed  its  connection  with  the 
newer  type  of  society.  But  in  the  lower  ranks  money 
and  labour  service  were  more  common.  The  peasant 
rendered  labour  or  paid  rent  to  his  lord,  in  return  for  his 
land ;  the  craftsmen  of  a  town  paid  an  annual  sum  to  the 
king  or  earl  for  the  charter  of  their  privileges.  Even  the 
beneficed  clerk  owed  to  his  patrofi  the  duty  of  saying 
prayers  for  the  good  of  his  soul. 

Evidence. — We  shall  see  more,  as  we  go  on,  of  the 
nature  and  consequences  of /^z^o'a/mw.  Here  it  is  sufficient 
to  notice  its  place  in  the  History  of  Politics.  //  is  the  con- 
necting link  between  purely  patriarchal  a?id  purely  political 
society.  The  brilliant  historical  labours  of  M.  Longnon  have, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  established  the  geographical 
identity  of  the  great  fiefs  of  the  West  Prankish  Empire 
with  the  tribal  settlements  of  early  Gaul.  Mr.  Skene  has 
been  equally  successful  in  showing  that  the  Scottish  earl- 
doms and  thanages  of  the  eleventh  century  were  really  the 
old  tribal  and  clan  chiefships  in  a  feudal  dress.  Could  we 
but  get  sufficient  evidence,  we  should  no  doubt  find  that 
the  same  was  the  case  in  England  and  other  countries. 
Feudal  society  has  often  been  reproached  with  vagueness 
and  inconsistency.    These  are  precisely  the  qualities  whicti 


THE   STATE   AND    FEUDALISM  83 

we  should  expect  in  a  phase  of  development  which  is 
not  in  itself  essential  or  universal,  but  which  is  an  easy 
and  convenient  means  of  softening  a  change.  In  the 
popular  form  of  entertainment  known  as  "dissolving 
views,"  one  picture  is  not  suddenly  replaced  by  another; 
but  the  old  picture  gradually  melts  into  the  new  by  a 
nebulous  and  misty  process,  rather  fascinating  to  watch 
but  not  conveying  any  very  clear  ideas.  In  the  panorama 
of  History,  feudalism  represents  the  blurred  outlines  and 
uiotiey  colours  of  the  "dissolving  view." 


CHAPTER  IX 

Early  Political  Institutions 

Following  our  accustomed  plan,  having  seen  how  tbe 
State  came  into  existence,  we  proceed  to  examine  its  organ- 
ization, that  is  to  say,  the  institutions  by  which  its  business 
is  carried  on.  Foremost  amongst  these  institutions  stands, 
of  course — 

I.  The  kingship.— It  is  a  simple  historical  fact  that  the 
kingship  of  the  modern  State  is  the  direct  outcome  of  that 
process  of  conquest  and  migration  which  founded  the 
State  itself.  Till  the  general  break-up  of  things  established, 
which  followed  immediately  on  the  French  Revolution, 
many  of  the  descendants  of  the  original  conquerors  of 
Europe  continued  to  sit  on  the  thrones  which  their  ancestors 
had  established.  Now  that  the  chain  of  hereditary  succes- 
sion has,  in  most  cases,  been  rudely  broken,  the  position 
established  by  the  founders  of  the  modem  State  still  exists 
under  other  names.  Kingship  is  perhaps  the  most  suc- 
cessful institution  of  Politics. 

But  we  must  be  careful  not  to  suppose  that  the  first  kings 
were  institutions;  they  were  merely  individuals.  The 
earliest  kings  were,  as  we  have  seen,  successful  military 
adventurers,  who  had  managed  to  conquer  territories  of  con- 
siderable size.  By  their  own  personal  skill  and  prowess  they 
maintained  their  position,  and  enforced  what  they  considered 
to  be  their  rights.  What  these  rights  were  we  shall  enquire 
a  little  later  ;  here  we  are  concerned  to  notice  that  the  com- 
munities   conquered    bv  the  early  host-leaders    probably 

(84) 


EARLY   POLITICAL   INSTITUTIONS  85 

regarded  the  latter  as  temporary  nuisances,  who  would  in 
due  course  be  removed  by  the  hand  of  death.  Their  posi- 
tion was  totally  opposed  to  the  old  ideas  of  society;  they 
were  much  too  stern,  much  too  enterprising,  much  too 
neglectful  of  time-honored  practice,  to  suit  the  easy-going 
ways  of  patriarchal  society.  They  represented  the  future, 
as  the  dying  patriarchal  society  represented  the  past. 

Permanence  of  the  kingship.— The  kings  them- 
selves were  perfectly  aware  of  this  view.  Probably,  from  the 
very  fact  that  they  were  successful  warriors,  they  were  men 
of  exceptional  ability,  not  merely  in  war,  but  also  in  the 
management  of  men.  Leaders  like  Clovis,  and  Theodoric, 
and  Alaric,  and  Egbert,  were  not  likely  to  make  the  mistake 
of  supposing  that  they  could  permanently  maintain  their 
positions  by  the  mere  force  of  military  prestige.  And  so, 
although  they  clung  tenaciously  to  their  military  powers, 
although  the  military  origin  of  modern  kingship  has  never 
really  been  forgotten,  they  began  to  buttress  up  their 
authority  by  appeals  to  other  sanctions. 

Absorbs  the  chiefship.— One  of  the  most  skilful  of 
these  appeals  was  the  appropriation  by  the  kings  of  the 
character  and  attributes  of  the  tribal  chief  whom  they  had 
conquered  or  dispossessed.  It  is  possible  that,  in  a  few 
cases,  they  were,  really  and  truly,  members  of  tribal  aristoc- 
racies, though  probably  not  of  the  aristocracies  of  the  tribes 
whom  they  had  conquered.  In  most  cases,  they  were 
simply  adventurers,  who  had  obtained  their  positions  by 
sheer  hard  fighting.  But  they  soon,  by  a  series  of  fictions 
which  could  only  have  been  accepted  in  a  simple  age, 
persuaded  their  subjects  that  they  really  were  members  of 
the  ancient  families  whom  they  had  overcome.  The  pedi- 
gree of  an  early  European  king  generally  led  up  to  some 
well-known  Hero,  who  had  long  been  regarded  with  rever- 
ence as  the  mythical  ancestor  of  the  tribe  or  tribes  over 
which  he  was  ruling.  A  simpler  method  by  which  a  con- 
queror attached  himself  to  the  tribal  instincts  of  his  subjects 


86  A   SHORT   HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

was  by  marrying  the  daughter  of  the  greatest  of  the 
conquered  chiefs.  Although  by  strict  patriarchal  law  none 
of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  patriarch  could  go  in  the 
female  line,  theunion  was  valuable  for  sentimental  purposes  ; 
and  such  a  policy  undoubtedly  helped,  as  it  has  often  done 
in  later  times,  to  strengthen  the  position  of  an  intruder. 

The  great  result  of  this  skilful  borrowing  of  patriarchal 
ideas  was  that  the  kingship  quickly  became  hereditary.  We 
have  seen  that  the  position  of  host-leader  was  originally 
elective,  not,  of  course,  in  the  sense  that  it  was  balloted  or 
even  voted  for,  like  the  chairmanship  of  a  modern  committee, 
but  in  the  sense  that  no  one  was  entitled  to  it  by  right  of 
birth.  The  host-leader  was  chosen  by  the  informal  adherence 
of  those  who  admired  his  valour.  But  it  was  essential  to 
the  success  of  kingship  that  it  should  become  hereditary  ; 
and,  fortunately,  the  desire  to  hand  a  great  position  over  to 
one's  children  is  one  of  the  deepest  instincts  of  average 
humanity.*  So  all  the  energies  of  the  early  kings  were  bent 
towards  this  end  ;  and  their  success  was  due  chiefly  to  their 
skilful  borrowing  of  patriarchal  ideas.  The  dream  of  an 
elective  monarchy  is  one  of  the  chimaeras  of  the  political 
Utopian.  According  to  his  amiable  theory,  freedom  of 
election  secures  the  best  possible  man.  In  sober  truth,  as 
evidenced  by  the  facts  of  history,  it  results  in  one  of  three 
consequences.  Either  the  country  is  torn  in  pieces  by 
contending  factions — the  fate  of  Poland  ;  or  the  kingship  is 
gradually  shorn  of  its  rights  and  possessions,  which  are 
given  away  as  bribes  to  important  electors  by  ambitious 
candidates— the  fate  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire;  or, 
finally,  the  electors  deliberately  choose  a  nonentity,  who  has 
no  enemies,  and  who  will  be  an  obedient  puppet  in  the 
hands  of  wire-pullers.  This  is  the  fate  of  the  electoral 
Presidency  of  the  modern  Republic,  which  is  a  kingship  in 


*Modern  instances,  of  course,  are  to  be  found  ;  e.  g.,  Cromwell  and 
Napoleon,  both  of  whom  tried  to  make  their  positions  hereditary. 


EARLY   POLITICAL   INSTITUTIONS  87 

all  but  name.  Only  in  times  of  extreme  and  obvious 
danger,  and  even  then  only  when  the  electors  are  thoroughly 
honest,  does  an  election  produce  a  really  good  king. 

Traces  of  elective  monarchy.— As  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  the  great  majority  of  the  European  monarchies  the 
tradition  of  an  elective  leader  lingered  for  a  few  generations, 
with  just  sufficient  vitality  to  show  that  it  had  once  been 
genuine.  It  resulted,  practically,  in  the  notion  that  an  heir- 
apparent  might  be  rejected  for  positive  infirmity,  whether  of 
body  or  mind.  But,  though  the  hereditary  principle  was 
accepted,  it  was  not  the  modem  but  the  ancient  or  patri- 
archal form  of  it  which  for  a  long  time  prevailed,  and 
which  gave  the  succession  to  the  eldest  male  of  the  royal 
house,  not  to  the  son  of  the  last  occupant  of  the  throne. 
This  older  form  of  hereditary  succession  lingered  in  Russia 
until  the  seventeenth  century. 

Becomes  peligious.— By  these  means  the  kingship 
became  an  institution,  or  permanent  machine  for  carrying  on 
the  business  of  government.  People  came  to  look  upon  it 
as  natural  and  inevitable  that  a  king  should  rule  over  them. 
But  the  early  kings  made  another  admirable  move  when 
they  assumed  a  religious  position,  by  allying  themselves 
with  the  Church.  We  have  seen  something  of  the  origin  of 
this  alliance  (p.  78) ;  here  it  is  only  necessary  to  call 
attention  to  the  well-known  fact  of  the  close  connection 
between  the  kingship  and  the  Church  in  the  early  days  of 
the  State.  Throughout  all  Christendom,  bishops  and  priests 
were  the  most  intimate  counsellors  and  the  most  enthusiastic 
supporters  of  the  Crown  ;  and  the  rich  gifts  of  the  kings 
were  amply  repaid  by  the  halo  of  sanctity  which  the  grateful 
Church  threw  around  the  person  and  office  of  the  king. 
From  the  day  of  his  accession,  when  the  sacred  oil  was 
poured  upon  his  head,  to  the  day  of  his  death,  when  his  grave 
was  blessed  by  the  Church,  the  monarch  was  surrounded 
and  guarded  by  ecclesiastics.  In  Oriental  countries,  in 
Mahommedan  States,  the  union  is  even  closer  ;  for  there  the 


88  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

Head  of  the  State  is  also  Head  of  tlie  Church.  But  there  is 
actually  an  example  in  outlying  Christendom  in  which  the 
archbishopric  of  the  Church  has  become  hereditary  in  the 
line  of  secular  rulers ;  and  ev^en  in  Europe  the  intimate 
connection  between  the  king  and  the  Church  was  the  best 
possible  safeguard  against  any  revival  of  patriarchalism,  in 
connection  with  ancestor  worship. 

2.  The  Council.— We  have  seen  (p.  75)  that  in  the  rude 
beginnings  of  monarchy,  the  host-leader  is  found  always  to 
be  surrounded  by  his  followers  ox  companions,  men  devoted 
entirely  to  his  service,  on  the  terms  that  he  shall  provide 
them  with  maintenance  and  opportunities  for  distinction. 
As  the  host-leader  developed  into  the  king,  this  body  of 
followers  became  the  council  of  the  kingdom.  Placed  in 
the  midst  of  a  hostile  country,  the  king  and  his  followers 
were  absolutely  essential  to  one  another's  safety.  Without 
their  support,  the  king  could  not  hold  his  conquest ;  without 
his  master  mind,  they  would  fall  victims  in  detail  to  racial 
hostility.  The  success  of  the  king  meant  the  enrichment  of 
his  followers  ;  the  contentment  and  prosperity  of  his  fol- 
lowers meant  the  safety  of  the  king.  We  may  put  aside  as 
premature  any  definite  theories  about  the  right  of  the 
council,  in  those  early  days,  to  control  the  actions  of  the 
king.  All  our  accounts  of  the  relationship  between  the 
early  king  and  his  council  go  to  show  that  the  former,  if  he 
chose  to  run  the  risk  of  becoming  unpopular,  could  do  what 
he  liked.  Although,  perhaps,  the  council  gained  somewhat 
in  the  eyes  of  the  king's  subjects  by  being  regarded  as  the 
successor  of  the  old  tribal  council  of  elders,  yet,  in  reality, 
it  was  the  body  of  the  kirig's  servants,  chosen  by  him  at  his 
pleasure.  Nevertheless,  the  existence  of  the  council  did 
soon  undoubtedly  become  a  substantial  check  on  the 
despotic  tendencies  of  the  king.  A  theory  grew  up  that  a 
good  king  consulted  his  council  frequently,  that  he  listened 
to  its  advice.  And  from  this  point  the  step  was  compara- 
tively short  to  the  doctrine  that  the  king  ought  to  consult, 


EARLY   POLITICAL   INSTITUTIONS  89 

and,  finally,  that  he  imist  consult  his  council.  And  thus,  in 
reality,  the  council  is  the  germ  of  what  we  call  constitutional 
government.  But,  long  before  it  became  a  bulwark  of 
popular  liberties,  the  council  had  rendered  invaluable  service 
to  the  kingship  as  an  institution,  and  this  in  at  least  four 
ways. 

(a)  It  ppesepved  the  continuity.— Kingship  may  be 
perpetual ;  but,  in  fact,  the  individual  king  dies.  And, 
between  the  death  of  one  king  and  the  succession  of  another 
there  lies  a  critical  moment.  The  forces  of  anarchy  are 
ready  to  break  out.  "The  king  died  on  the  following  day 
.  .  .  then  there  was  tribulation  soon  in  the  land,  for  every 
man  that  could  forthwith  robbed  another,"  says  an  old 
chronicler.  There  is  always  the  chance  that  old  ideas  may 
revive,  and  set  people  longing  for  the  good  old  days  when 
every  one  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes.  We 
must  remember  that  a  successful  monarchy  really  does  run 
counter  to  a  good  many  cherished  practices.  It  does  not, 
for  example,  permit  of  blood-feuds  or  tribal  forays  ;  it 
probably  has  incurred  the  resentment  of  old  religions  ;  it 
has  sanctioned  practices  which  ancient  prejudice  regards  as 
monstrous  ;  it  has,  probably,  exacted  a  good  deal  of  tribute. 
So  there  are  always  people  waiting  for  a  good  opportunity 
to  revolt  against  it.  But  the  existence  of  the  council  tides 
over  the  dangerous  moment.  Though  in  strict  theory  the 
death  of  the  king  dissolves  his  council,  in  fact  the  members 
of  council  hold  together,  in  hopes  of  being  appointed  by 
his  successor.  And,  in  the  meantime,  they  keep  the 
political  machine  going. 

{b)  It  ppesepved  the  traditions.— One  of  the  greatest 
dangers  to  the  newly-established  kingship  is  the  risk  of 
offending  its  subjects  by  exhibitions  of  caprice.  It  has  to 
deal  with  a  community  living  according  to  immemorial 
custom.  It  is  bound  to  effect  alterations  to  a  certain  extent ; 
but,  if  it  is  wise,  it  will  do  so  as  little  as  possible.  Above 
all,  it  must  avoid  unnecessary  changes.     It  is  almost  better, 


90  A   SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

under  some  conditions,  to  persevere  in  a  bad  policy  than  to 
change  it  for  a  good  one.  The  average  man,  especially  if 
he  be  of  a  patriarchal  type,  suspects  and  hates  change.  But 
a  body  of  councillors  is  far  less  likely  to  be  capricious  than  a 
single  ruler  ;  its  members  will  possibly  have  something  to 
lose  by  a  change  of  policy.  Its  influence  will,  in  the  vast 
majority  of  cases,  be  against  change. 

(<r)  It  broke  the  obloquy.— As  we  have  said,  govern- 
ment, especially  a  newly-established  government,  is  bound 
to  be  unpopular,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent.  If  the  whole 
of  the  criticism  provoked  by  its  acts  were  to  fall  on  the  head 
of  a  single  individual,  his  position  would  become  very  pre- 
carious. But  if  the  blame  can  be  distributed  amongst  his 
advisers,  or  if  even,  in  extreme  cases,  one  or  more  of  these 
advisers  can  be  sacrificed  to  the  popular  discontent,  much 
will  be  gained  by  the  Head  of  the  State.  Being  an  imper- 
sonal authority,  a  council  can  stand  criticism  much  better 
than  an  individual.  This  may  not  be  a  very  dignified  or 
enjoyable  function  of  the  council,  but  it  is  a  very  valuable 
one  from  this  point  of  view  of  the  State. 

{d)  It  incpeased  the  activity.— The  limits  of  the 
activity  of  a  single  individual  are  soon  reached.  Even  a 
king  like  Frederick  the  Great  cannot  know  personally  very 
much  of  what  is  going  on  in  his  dominion.  But  he  would 
know  still  less  if  it  were  not  for  his  councillors.  By  their 
own  observations,  and  through  their  agents,  they  find  out 
things  which  are  going  on,  and  repeat  them  to  the  king. 
As  with  knowledge,  so  with  action.  The  king  can,  per- 
sonally, do  but  little.  Even  in  early  days,  when  the  king 
was  still,  in  the  main,  a  warrior,  he  could  not  personally 
protect  all  his  dominions  at  once.  Still  less  could  he,  when 
the  business  of  his  position  became  (as  it  did  become) 
enormously  increased,  conduct  it  all  himself.  But  his 
council  could  be  increased  to  any  size  ;  and  thus  he  could, 
as  it  were,  provide  himself  with  an  unlimited  number  of 
hands. 


EARLY   POLITICAL  INSTITUTIONS  91 

3.  The  local  agents.  —  Hitherto  we  have  assumed 
that  the  king's  councillors  have,  save  for  short  intervals  of 
absence,  surrounded  his  person,  either  on  the  battle-field 
or  in  the  palace  or  hall.  This  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
old  idea.  The  war-leader's  companions,  in  time  of  peace, 
fed  at  his  table  and  lived  in  his  house.  And  the  idea 
has  never  been  abandoned.  The  Court  of  the  monarch, 
even  in  modern  times,  is  actually  in  attendance  on  the  person 
of  the  king.  But,  when  the  freebooting  leader  became  the 
king  of  a  territory,  he  required  supporters,  not  only  round 
his  throne,  but  also  all  over  his  territory.  We  have  already, 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  had  a  glimpse  of  the  readiest  plan. 
The  conqueror  accepted  the  allegiance  of  such  of  the  old 
patriarchal  authorities  as  were  willing  to  submit  to  him,  and 
continued  them  in  their  old  positions,  as  his  representatives. 
It  was  a  dangerous  practice,  though,  perhaps,  less  danger- 
ous than  forcible  dispossession.  The  king  felt  safer  where 
the  circumstances  allowed  him  to  place  one  of  his  own 
trusted  followers  in  the  room  of  a  dead  or  banished  chief. 
And,  as  the  old  nobles  died  out,  the  policy  of  replacing 
them  by  the  "king's  thegns"  was  steadily  pursued,  until, 
by  a  silent  but  revolutionary  process,  the  country  had  been 
mapped  out  into  districts,  each  in  charge  of  a  representa- 
tive of  the  central  government.  In  all  probability  the  dis- 
tricts themselves  would  be  little  changed.  In  England,  for 
example,  the  local  divisions  which  existed  until  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present  century  represented  in  the  main  the 
ancient  units  of  patriarchal  society.  The  county  or  shire 
was,  in  many  cases  at  least,  the  district  of  a  tribal  settle- 
ment— Sussex  of  the  South  Saxons,  Dorsetshire  of  the 
Dorssetas,  Somerset  of  the  Somersaetas,  and  so  on.  In 
other  cases,  as  Dr.  Freeman  pointed  out,  it  was  an  artificial 
district  commanded  by  a  fortified  town,  such  as  Bedfordshire, 
Huntingdonshire,  Derbyshire,  and  so  on.  But  this  was  a 
much  later  formation.  And  there  are  strong  reasons  to 
believe  that  the  hundred,  the  other  great  local  division  of 


92  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

the  Middle  Ages,  will  ultimately  be  proved  to  have  been  the 
territory  of  a  clan.  In  later  times,  of  course,  the  subdivision 
becomes  more  minute,  and  we  get  the  single  tna7ior,  under 
its  lord;  but  enough  has  been  said  to  show  how  feudalism 
began. 

We  must  not,  of  course,  suppose  that  the  man  who  was 
placed  in  charge  of  a  local  district  was  entirely  excluded 
from  the  Cormcil  which  surrounded  the  person  of  the  king. 
On  the  contrary,  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  the 
greatest  of  the  king's  subordinates,  the  earls  in  England  and 
Scotland,  the  dukes  and  counts  on  the  Continent,  always  sat, 
as  of  right,  in  the  Council,  at  any  rate  on  its  solemn  days  of 
session.  We  distinguish  in  the  Witan  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
kings,  beside  the  royal  princes  and  the  great  ecclesiastics, 
two  classes  of  people,  the  ealdornien  and  the  thegns.  The 
former  undoubtedly  had  a  local  position  as  heads  of  the 
shires  ;  the  latter  were,  probably,  the  humbler  followers  of 
the  king,  who  lived  permanently  at  his  court.  But  it  is 
unlikely  that  the  smaller  local  representatives,  the  "  landed 
thegns"  (as  we  may  call  them)  sat  in  the  Council. 

To  conclude  this  chapter,  we  may  ask.  What  were  the 
duties  imposed  upon  these  local  representatives  by  the 
early  kings?  And  we  shall  hardly  get  a  better  answer  than 
by  referring  once  more  to  the  picturesque  words  of  the 
Heiniskringla,  which  describe  Harold  Fairhair  as  subduing 
all  Norway  "withscatt,  and  duties,  and  lordships." 

(a)  Seatt  or  Tribute  is,  of  course,  one  of  the  prime 
objects  of  the  conqueror.  Historians  sometimes  speak  of 
primitive  warriors  as  though  they  fought  simply  for  the 
love  of  fighting.  No  doubt  there  are  some  races— for 
example,  the  Maoris  of  New  Zealand  half  a  century  ago, — to 
whom  the  excitement  of  the  battle  seems  really  to  be  an 
end  in  itself.  But  in  the  majority  of  cases,  ancient  and 
modem,  the  stimulus  of  an  aggressive  war  has  been  either 
revenge  or,  in  one  form  or  another,  plunder.  Sometimes 
the  plunder  has  been  merely  of  a  temporary  kind,  as  in  the 


EARLY   POLITICAL   INSTITUTIONS  93 

raids  of  the  Vikings.  But  the  warrior  who  is  a  little  more  far- 
seeing  than  the  Viking  looks  forward  to  systematic  and  con- 
tinuous plunder.  To  this  end,  he  establishes  a  kingdom  ; 
and  when  he  has  established  it,  he  sets  to  work  to  exact  a 
steady  supply  of  tribute.  Doubtless,  to  a  man  of  the  tem- 
perament we  have  tried  to  describe,  there  is  something  in 
itself  attractive  in  ruling  over  a  mass  of  subjects.  But  the 
notion  that  a  ruler  lives  for  the  good  of  his  subjects  is 
a  very  [rare  development  in  the  early  days  of  the  State. 
The  real  importance  of  tribute  in  the  beginnings  of  politi- 
cal organization  may  be  most  vividly  realized  in  the 
Mahommedan  States  of  the  East,  such  as  the  Empire  of 
Akbar  in  India  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  in  the  Persian 
and  Turkish  Empires  at  the  present  day.  As  Mr.  Baden 
Powell  has  well  pointed  out,  it  is,  in  its  origin,  primarily  a 
levy  on  agricultural  produce,  a  "share  of  the  heap  on  the 
threshing-floor ;"  and,  in  the  case  of  the  Moghul  Empire, 
it  rose  as  high  as  one-third  of  the  produce.  In  the  harder- 
won  conquests  of  the  founders  of  the  European  States,  a 
more  decent  disguise  was  adopted.  The  conquerors  appro- 
priated the  customary  offerings  made  by  the  tribesmen  to 
their  ancient  chiefs,  the  food  rents  and  /eastings  of  patri- 
archal times.  Also  they  appropriated  the  lands  which  had 
been  set  apart  for  the  maintenance  of  the  patriarchal 
chiefs,  and  let  them  out  to  tenants  of  their  own  who 
paid  them  a  return  in  money  or  kind.  They  estab- 
lished, probably  also  by  virtue  of  ancient  custom, 
their  privileged  claims  to  certain  profitable  incidents, 
such  as  "royal"  fish,  mines  of  precious  metals,  the 
contents  of  wrecks,  and  the  great  game  of  the  forests. 
All  these  miscellaneous  items,  lumped  together,  were 
known  in  England  as  the  "farm  of  the  shire;"  and  long 
formed  the  bulk  of  the  royal  revenue.  Sometimes  a  more 
direct  demand  was  made  of  an  additional  sum  for  a  special 
purpose,  e.  g.,  the  Danegelt  in  England,  and  the  Dime  in 
France.     Privileged  towns  paid,  as  we  have  said  (p.  82), 


94  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

substantial  sums  in  return  for  guarantees  of  their  trade 
privileges.  Only,  in  western  Europe,  there  was  always 
some  decent  excuse,  such  as  custom  or  bargain,  for  a 
demand  of  tribute ;  the  Oriental  meekness,  which  sub- 
mits to  the  absolute  demands  of  the  States  tax-gatherer, 
has  hardly  been  known  in  the  arena  of  modern  civilization. 

(d)  Duties. — Besides  tribute,  the  conqueror  has  one 
other  imperative  need  ;  viz.,  mililary  service.  He  has,  of 
course,  his  own  special  followers,  his  "professional  soldiers," 
as  we  might  say ;  and  he  takes  care  to  recruit  their  ranks 
by  making  it  worth  the  while  of  the  most  enterprising 
young  men  among  his  subjects  to  join  the  service.  But, 
besides  this  volunteer  army,  he  must  have  a  reserve  defen- 
sive force,  in  case  some  rival  warrior  should  attempt  to 
repeat  at  his  expense  the  experiment  which  he  has  success- 
fully conducted  at  the  expense  of  others.  And  so  he  lays 
it  down  generally  that  every  man  is  bound  to  serve  if 
called  upon  —  the  able-bodied  as  combatants,  the  feebler  as 
makers  and  repairers  of  roads,  bridges  and  forts.  Often 
an  invidious  distinction  is  drawn  between  those  who  are 
actually  expected  to  serve,  and  those  who  are  debarred 
by  reason  of  social  inferiority  or  heterodoxy  in  reli- 
gion. But  these  do  not  escape ;  they  are  subjected  to  a 
special  tax  in  lieu  of  service.  The  practice  afterwards 
spreads,  and  a  general  commutation  of  war-service  for  tax- 
ation is  adopted.  Then,  perhaps,  after  a  few  generations,  a 
reforming  king  renews  the  liability  to  personal  service  —  but 
the  taxation  is  not  remitted. 

{c)  Lordships. — These  were,  in  fact,  the  great  and 
charactistic  engine  by  which  the  head  of  the  State  obtained 
his  taxes  and  duties.  In  days  in  which  means  of  communi- 
cation were  very  imperfect,  it  was  impossible  for  the  central 
government  to  keep  in  touch  with  all  its  subjects.  And 
sos  as  we  have  seen  (p.  80),  the  conquered  territory  was 
parcelled  out  among  the  followers  of  the  king,  either  his 
own  fellow-adventurers,  or  patriarchal  authorities  who  had 


EARLY   POLITICAL  INSTITUTIONS  95 

accepted  his  rule.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  king, 
these  officials  were  servants ;  but,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  inhabitants  of  their  districts,  they  were  lords.  In 
order  that  they  might  fulfil  their  tasks  of  collecting  trib- 
ute and  soldiers,  they  were  allowed  to  exercise  a  good  deal 
of  authority  over  their  districts.  This  authority,  no  doubt, 
in  many  cases  was  looked  upon,  by  themselves  and  their 
subjects,  as  being  of  the  old  patriarchal  character ;  but  by 
the  king  it  was  always  carefully  treated  as  a  delegation  from 
himself,  and,  in  fact,  it  was  largely  the  knowledge  that  the 
local  potentate  would  be  backed,  if  need  were,  by  the 
royal  army,  that  made  his  administration  effective.  As  the 
patriarchal  nobility  died  out,  the  royal  character  of  the 
local  official  became  more  and  jnore  obvious  ;  until  at  last 
he  came  to  be  looked  upon  exclusively  as  a  royal  nominee, 
unless,  indeed,  as  not  unfrequently  'happened,  he  tried  to 
set  up  on  his  own  account  as  a  feudal  magnate. 

Not  only,  however,  was  the  local  authority  responsible 
for  tribute  and  for  soldiers  ;  he  was  also  answerable  for  the 
peace  of  his  district.  It  is  one  of  the  most  honorable  tradi- 
tions of  monarchy,  that  it  has  everywhere  set  its  face  against 
internal  disorder.  In  patriarchal  times,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
man  was  guaranteed  against  violence  by  his  tribe,  later  by 
his  clan  or  gild.  But  this  protection  virtually  resolved 
itself  into  a  liability  to  exact  revenge  ;  and  the  plan  did  not, 
therefore,  tend  to  complete  tranquillity.  The  monarchy,  in 
its  earlier  days,  preferred  to  entrust  the  maintenance  of 
security  to  its  own  agents,  at  any  rate  in  the  case  of  the 
lower  ranks  of  society.  And  so  the  local  representative  of 
the  crown  was  entrusted  with  what  we  should  call  very  ex- 
tensive police  powers,  and  in  return  his  personal  safety  was 
protected  by  exceptional  penalties.  In  the  earliest  days  of 
the  monarchy,  the  fact  that  a  slain-tnan  was  a  "king's  ser- 
vant" rendered  his  slayer  liable  to  a  three-fold  murder  fine. 
Somewhat  later  the  same  policy  reappeared,  in  the  same 
condemnation  pronounced  upon  any  man  who  should  dare 


96 


A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 


to  raise  his  hand  against  his  lord.  For,  with  the  duty  of 
collecting  tribute  from  the  people  of  his  district,  with  the 
power  of  enrolling  them  for  military  service,  with  the  exer- 
cise over  them  of  disciplinary  authority,  the  State's  local 
representative  had  indeed  become  the  lord  of  his  neigh- 
bours ;  and  so  the  words  of  the  HeimskringCa  are 
explained. 


CHAPTER  X 
The   State  and  Property 

No  POLITICAL  institution  is  of  greater  importance,  none 
has  been  the  subject  of  greater  controversy,  than  the  institu- 
tion o{  property.  There  is  none,  therefore,  more  fit  for  the 
appHcation  of  the  historical  method,  which  knows  no  preju- 
dices and  admits  no  passions,  but  simply  relates  facts. 

We  begin,  of  course,  by  asking  the  question  —  What  is 
property  ?  And,  leaving  aside  technicalities,  a  good  simple 
answer  to  the  question  is,  that  it  is  the  right  vested  in  a 
human  being,  or  a  limited  number  of  hurnafi  beings,  to 
absorb  for  his  or  their  own  benefit  the  various  advantages 
which  can  be  derived  from  a  physical  subject  matter. 

A  Fight. —  There  are  one  or  two  points  to  be  specially 
noted  in  this  definition.  First,  what  do  we  mean  by  a  right? 
And,  again  putting  aside  technicalities,  we  may  define  a 
right  as  being  a  power  etiforced  by  public  sentiment.  If  I 
have  bought  a  book  in  an  open  and  honest  way,  public  senti- 
ment approves  of  my  dealing  with  the  book  as  I  please.  In 
early  times,  public  opinion  is  expressed  only  in  the  vague 
form  of  custom ;  in  later  days,  it  is  definitely  expressed  in 
legislation,  and  enforced  by  tribunals  and  officials.  It  some- 
times happens  that  the  exercise  of  a  right  is  opposed  to 
public  sentiment,  either  because  there  are  special  circum- 
stances which  render  a  particular  application  of  it  unpopular, 
or  because  public  sentiment  has  changed.  Nevertheless,  a 
right  is  really  the  creation  of  public  sentiment,  past  or 
present. 

o  (97) 


98  A   SHORT    HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

Vested  In  human  beings.— Again,  we  have  said  that 
property  is  a  right  vested  in  a  human  being  or  hiitnan  beings. 
Many  of  the  instincts  and  desires  which  have  led  to  the  ap- 
pearance oi  property  among  mankind  are  obviously  present 
in  the  brute  creation.  No  one  who  has  watched  a  dog  bury 
a  bone,  or  has  seen  a  monkey  pilfer  nuts,  will  for  a  moment 
doubt  this  fact.  But,  nevertheless,  we  do  not  speak  of 
animals  having  property.  Why?  Simply  because  public 
sentiment  does  not  support  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  de- 
sires. We  recognize,  perhaps,  very  faintly,  the  moral  right 
of  the  domesticated  animal  to  a  bare  maintenance  out  of  the 
produce  of  his  labours — "Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that 
treadeth  out  the  corn."  But  we  do  not  hesitate,  if  need  be, 
to  withhold  the  corn,  or  to  slaughter  the  ox. 

In  limited  numbers.— Again,  property  is  a  right  vested 
in  a  human  being  or  a  limited  number  of  human  beings.  The 
essence  of  it,  as  its  name  implies,  is  the  appropriation,  the 
making  special  to  an  individual  or  a  small  group  of  indi- 
viduals, of  a  part  of  the  common  stock  of  things.  Some- 
times, it  is  true,  we  speak  of  public  property ;  but  this  is 
really  a  contradiction  in  terms.  We  signify,  in  fact,  that  the 
thing  to  which  we  allude  is  not  any  one' s property  at  all,  and, 
therefore,  that  any  one  may  use  it.  When  we  really  mean 
that  the  thing  in  question  is  claimed  by  a  very  large  but 
definite  body,  we  do  not  use  the  word  property,  but  some 
word  which  conveys  a  different  idea.  Thus  we  say  that 
England  is  the  territory  of  the  English  people.  If  we  called 
it  their  property,  we  should  at  once  have  to  admit  that  no 
individual  Englishman  could  have  any  part  of  it  as  his 
roper ty  ;  which  is  notoriously  untrue. 

Exercised  over  subject  matter.- Once  more,  these 
rights  must  be  exercised  over  physical  subject  matter,  for 
that  alone  is  really  capable  of  appropriation.  In  a  figurative 
way  we  can,  of  course,  speak  o( property  in  ideas ;  but  the 
extreme  difficulty  which  we  find  in  protecting  such  property 
shows  that  it  differs  entirely  from  property  in  the  correct 


THE   STATE    AND    PROPERTY  99 

sense  of  the  term.  Ideas  are  spontaneous,  the  same  ideas 
may  spring  up  independently  in  thousands  of  minds,  they 
have  no  definite  beginning  or  ending,  they  are  intangible. 
How  can  they  be  protected  by  agencies  similar  to  those 
which  we  employ  for  the  protection  of  physical  subject 
matter? 

Fop  general  purposes.— Finally,  the  right  of  property 
is  a  right  to  absorb  the  various  advantages  (known  and  un- 
known) which  are  derivable  from  a  thing.  Here  is  the  real 
difficulty  of  the  subject,  and  the  key  to  its  history.  As  the 
jurists  say,  property  is  d,  general  right.  If  I  have  borrowed 
a  horse  simply  to  ride  from  London  to  Putney,  I  do  not 
speak  of  him  as  my  property.  Even  if  I  have  jobbed  him 
for  a  whole  season,  I  do  not  speak  of  him  as  mine.  It  is 
only  when  I  am  related  to  the  horse  in  such  a  way  that  I 
may,  if  I.  please,  ride  him  or  drive  him,  or  put  him  to  plough 
or  to  work  in  a  milk-cart,  may  kill  him  or  sell  him,  give  him 
away  or  turn  him  out  to  grass,  in  fact  do  anything  with  him 
I  please  which  does  not  conflict  with  the  public  sentiment  of 
the  community,  that  I  am  entitled  to  speak  of  him  as  my 
property.  With  the  abolition  of  slavery,  there  ceased  to  be 
property  in  human  beings.  Yet  we  all  know  that  one  man 
may  have  special  rights  over  another,  e.  g.,  a  master  over  his 
servant,  a  husband  over  his  wife,  and  so  on.  But  these  are 
limited  and  definite  rights. 

A  modern  idea. — Therefore,  we  make  a  great  mistake 
if  we  take  our  very  modern  idea  oi  property,  and,  looking 
back  into  the  early  history  of  mankind,  expect  to  find  it 
realized  by  people  in  those  days.  We  start  with  the  wrong 
question.  We  should  not  ask  —  In  whom  was  property 
vested  in  those  days  ?  but.  Was  there  atiy  property  at  all? 

If  this  sounds  to  modern  ears  an  absurd  question,  it  may 
become  less  absurd  when  we  consider  a  modern  illustration. 
Broadly  speaking,  the  high  seas  are  not,  at  the  present  day, 
the  property  of  any  one.  Why?  For  the  simple  reason 
that,  at  present,  the  only  advantage  to  be  derived  from  them 


lOO  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

is  the  convenience  of  traffic.  And  as  there  is  room  enough 
and  to  spare  for  all  the  ships  in  the  world  to  pass  over  them, 
the  question  of  property  in  them  does  not  arise.  But  we 
can  very  easily  foresee  that  it  might  arise ;  in  fact,  we  can 
guess  pretty  shrewdly  the  lines  on  which  it  will  arise  some 
day.  If  the  practice  of  laying  ocean  cables  extends  very 
much,  or  if  coastal  waters  no  longer  supply  sufficient  fish  for 
the  world's  consumption,  we  shall  soon  have  the  high  seas 
eagerly  claimed  as  territory  by  different  States,  And  if 
this  occurs,  we  shall  ultimately  go  a  step  further,  and  see  the 
territory  of  each  State  divided  up  as  property  among  its 
members,  as  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  it  increase. 
We  have  reached  the  first  stage  already,  in  what  are  called 
territorial  waters  ;  where  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from 
fishing,  shipping  and  gunning  are  sufficient  to  induce 
States  to  appropriate. 

This,  then,  is  the  key  to  the  history  of  property  as  an 
institution  —  the  growth  of  knowledge.  As  men  become 
more  and  more  awake  to  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from 
the  use  of  physical  things,  the  more  anxiously  and  completely 
do  they  appropriate  them.  And  thus  it  was  impossible  for 
us  to  study  the  history  of  property  until  we  realized  how 
man's  knowledge  of  the  resources  of  Nature  had  gradually 
grown.    Now  we  are  in  a  position  to  summarize  it  clearly. 

In  the  first,  or  hutiting  stage,  of  society,  the  requirements 
of  men  are  limited  to  hunting-grounds,  camping  grounds 
and  weapons.  Men  know  that  the  more  the  game  is  hunted 
in  a  particular  district,  the  less  there  will  be  to  hunt.  They 
therefore  manifest  great  jealousy  of  any  interference  with 
their  hunting-grounds.  Similarly,  their  very  existence  may 
depend  on  a  camp  with  a  proper  supply  of  water.  They 
resent,  therefore,  any  occupation  of  spots  which  they  are 
accustomed  to  use  for  camping.  Unhappily,  the  reports  of 
travellers  upon  savage  society,  though  dealing  largely  with 
the  physical  character  of  primitive  weapons,  do  not,  appar- 
ently, tell  us  much  about  the  savage's  ideas  respecting  their 


THE  STATE   AND    PROPERTY  loi 

ownership.  But  we  shall  probably  not  be  far  wrong  in 
assuming  that  weapons  were  among  the  very  earliest 
examples  o{  properfy ;  the  frequency  with  which  they  were 
used,  the  extreme  importance  of  their  being  kept  in  good 
order,  the  ease  with  which  they  could  be  physically  con- 
trolled, would  rapidly  generate  the  idea  of  appropriation. 
The  germ  of  property,  it  must  again  be  said,  is  user;  the 
captured  booty  is  readily  shared,  but  the  favourite  and  often- 
used  weapon  is  jealously  guarded.  There  is  some  evidence 
also  to  show  that  religious  paraphernalia,  such  as  sacred 
belts  and  feathers  and  stones,  are  early  appropriated  to 
groups  of  men.  But  a  savage's  weapon  can  only  be  used  by 
one  man  at  a  time  ;  and  so  it  lends  itself  the  more  readily  to 
appropriation. 

The  hunting  country. —  If  we  want  to  realize  the 
savage's  immature  notions  of  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  land,  we  may  take  the  modern  example  of  a  hunting 
country.  The  Hunt  and  its  Master  do  not  object  to  people 
walking  over  the  land,  to  pasturing  cattle  and  sheep  upon  it, 
to  growing  corn  upon  it  or  even  to  building  houses  and  living 
upon  it.  So  long  as  people  do  not  disturb  the  foxes  or  put 
barbed  wire,  they  are  regarded  with  toleration.  The  Hunt 
regards  the  country  as  its  own,  and  jealously  resents  any 
trespass  by  a  strange  pack.  But  it  does  not  claim  the 
country  as  its  property. 

Pastoral  stage. —  When  we  travel  a  stage  further  we 
find  changes  which  develop  still  further  the  rudimentary  idea 
of  property.  The  continued  association  of  the  herdsman 
with  his  cattle  and  sheep,  his  perception  of  the  increased 
advantages  which  can  be  derived  from  them  —  their  hides, 
wool  and  milk  —  strengthens  the  relationship  between  him 
and  them.  In  this  stage,  movable  chattels  (i.  e.,  "cattle") 
may  fairly  be  said  to  have  reached  the  stage  oi  property,  even 
of  individual  property.  But  so  also  must  wives,  children  and 
slaves.  As  we  have  seen,  the  perception  of  the  value  of 
human  labotir  leads  to  a  desire  to  appropriate  it.  The  words 


xoa  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

which,  in  primitive  law,  signify  the  relation  between  a 
patriarch  and  his  cattle,  signify  also  the  relationship  between 
him  and  his  wives,  children  and  slaves.  It  is  only  in  later 
times  that  the  different  classes  become  differentiated.  At 
first,  it  would  seem  that  birth  in  the  patriarch's  household  is 
the  normal  title  to  property.  A  very  interesting  old  Swedish 
formula,  in  the  primitive  procedure  for  theft,  makes  the 
claimant  say  that  the  ox  alleged  to  have  been  stolen  was 
bred  and  reared  in  his  stall.  But  it  is  probable  that,  as  the 
tribe  broke  up  into  clans,  and  the  clans  into  households, 
the  old  idea  that  booty  was  the  general  prize  of  the  pack 
died  out;  and  the  successful  cattle-reiver  appropriated  the 
captive  of  his  own  hands.  Finally,  as  the  notion  of  exchange 
developed,  a  man  claimed  that  which  he  had  taken  in 
exchange,  or  bought ;  but  there  is  abundant  evidence  to 
show  that,  even  in  historical  times,  purchase,  especially  of 
flocks  and  herds,  was  looked  upon  with  great  suspicion,  and 
that  the  man  who  was  found  with  a  strange  ox  in  his 
possession  ran  a  strong  risk  of  being  branded  as  a  thief 
Only  in  -markets  and  such  like  well-known  places,  and 
before  proper  witnesses,  could  a  sale  be  safely  conducted. 
And  in  English  law  at  the  present  day,  the  sale  in  opett 
market  has  a  very  special  force,  which  reminds  us  of  this 
ancient  rule. 

So  far,  then,  we  may  tabulate  our  stages  in  the  history  of 
property  thus — 
(i)  User. 

(2)  Production. 

(3)  Seizure  (perhaps). 

(4)  Exchange. 

Agpieultupal  stage.— Now  we  have  arrived  at  the 
agricultural  stage.  And  here,  it  is  evident,  we  are  on  the 
brink  of  a  great  development  of  the  idea  of  property  in  land. 
The  pastoralist  regards  his  "country"  much  as  the  hunter. 
It  is  the  feeding-ground  for  the  herds  of  the  tribe.  Perhaps 
the  jealousy  of  strangers  is  a  little  keener,  because  tame 


THE   STATE   AND   PROPERTY  103 

cattle  are  easier  to  steal  than  wild  game.  Probably,  also, 
the  user  which  the  individual  tribesman  may  make  of  the 
tribal  land  is  more  strictly  defined.  But  there  is  as  yet  no 
individual  right  in  land,  for  land  is  still  regarded  only  as 
pasture  and  hunting-ground  ;  and  there  is  no  need  of  parti- 
tion for  these  purposes.  But  the  agriculturist  soon  forms 
new  ideas.  As  each  new  improvement  in  cultivation  makes 
land  more  valuable,  the  clan,  or  the  family,  or  the  man  who 
made  the  improvement,  becomes  less  willing  to  see  it  pass 
into  the  hands  of  others,  less  willing  to  move  on  to  other 
land  on  which  less  labour  has  been  expended.  And  so 
agricultural  land  became,  as  we  have  seen,  appropriated  to 
the  clan  amongst  whose  members  it  was  periodically  inter- 
changed ;  and,  finally,  even  this  redistribution  ceased,  and 
the  family,  ultimately  the  individual,  became  permanently 
associated  with  a  specific  piece  of  land. 

Still  far  from  modepn  ideas.— This  is  a  long  step ; 
but  it  is  still  very  far  from  bringing  us  to  the  modern  notion 
oi  private  property  in  land.  All  that  we  have  arrived  at  is, 
that  the  same  man  may  go  on  year  after  year  ploughing  the 
same  piece  of  land,  and,  it  may  be,  his  children  after  him. 
That  would  not  satisfy  the  landowner  of  the  present  day. 

Limited  user. — Observe,  in  the  first  place,  the  man  may 
only  use  the  land  for  agriculture.  It  is  true  that  one  of  the 
first  real  social  results  of  agriculture  was  to  substitute  the 
wooden  house  for  the  herdsman's  tent;  and  the  farmer  was 
allowed  to  build  himself  a  house  in  the  village,  and  to  inhabit 
it  permanently.  Also  he  was  allowed  to  enclose  a  little  toft 
or  garden  space,  and  a  cro/t  or  meadow,  both  near  his 
house,  for  the  supply  of  his  family  and  domestic  animals. 
But  the  bulk  of  "his"  land  (if  we  may  call  it  so)  he  had 
still  not  only  to  plough  and  reap,  but  to  plough  and  reap  in 
the  regular  way  at  fixed  times.  (See  p.  53.)  If  he  had 
not,  his  fellow-villagers  would  have  complained.  If  he  had 
attempted,  for  example,  to  keep  cattle  and  sheep  in  his 
strips,  he  would  have  ruined  their  crops  ;   and  he  would 


104  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

likewise  have  incurred  the  jealousy  of  those  members  of  the 
clan  who  still  longed  for  broad  pastures,  and  who  regarded 
the  new  practice  of  agriculture  with  dislike.  The  world's 
history  is  full  of  this  quarrel,  from  the  days  when  patricians 
and  plebeians  in  Rome  fought  over  the  State  lands,  to  the 
days  when  the  squatters  (sheep-farmers)  of  Australia  were 
at  loggerheads  with  the  selectors  (agriculturists)  over  a 
precisely  similar  question. 

No  alienation. — Again,  the  farmer  had  his  house  and 
land,  but  he  might  not  sell  them.  The  agricultural  village 
of  primitive  times  was,  as  we  have  explained  (p.  60),  a  very 
"close"  thing.  No  strangers  could  get  a  footing  in  it,  at 
least  without  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  village.  And 
the  members  of  the  clan  would  not  want  to  buy  lands, 
because  they  could  get  them  for  nothing. 

Action  of  the  State. — But  the  appearance  of  the  State, 
combined,  no  doubt,  with  economic  influences,  accom- 
plished the  final  stage  in  the  evolution  of  property.  The 
results  of  its  policy  may  be  said  to  have  been  two-fold.  It 
created  a  landlord  class,  and  it  dissolved  the  village  cotn- 
tnunity. 

I.  LandlOFdism. — As  we  have  seen  (p.  91),  one  of  the 
earliest  measures  of  the  State  was  to  plant  its  representa- 
tives in  the  various  localities  of  its  territory,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  exacting  tribute,  levying  soldiers  and  maintaining 
order.  We  may  be  fairly  sure  that,  when  the  State  made 
their  appointments,  it  had  no  clear  intention  of  converting 
the  districts  entrusted  to  its  representatives  into  property. 
When  the  Crown  at  the  present  day  appoints  a  man  Col- 
lector of  Customs  at  the  port  of  Liverpool,  or  Lord  Lieu- 
tenant of  the  county  of  Surrey,  it  does  not  make  him  owner 
of  the  soil  on  which  Liverpool  stands,  or  of  the  county  of 
Surrey.  In  the  language  of  early  times,  it  was  lordship  the 
State  meant  to  confer,  not  property. 

InhePitanee.— But  this  lordship  tended  to  ripen  into 
property.     In  the  first  place,  the  State's  representative,  as 


THE   STATE   AND    PROPERTY  105 

we  have  seen  (p.  qt),  probably  was  either  a  tribal  or  a  clan 
chief,  or  stood  in  the  place  of  one.  But  the  position  of  a 
tribal  or  clan  chief  was  hereditary.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  to  find  that  lordsJiip  became  hereditary  also  ; 
much  in  the  same  way  as  the  Crown  itself  had  done  (p.  86). 
This  was,  of  course,  one  of  the  most  striking  features  of 
feudalism.  But  an  office  which  can  be  inherited  soon 
begins  to  look  very  like  property. 

Rent.— In  the  second  place,  the  Crown's  representative 
had  to  pay  a  certain  sum  of  money  as  the  equivalent  of  his 
lordship.  If  he  did  not,  his  lordship  was  taken  away  and 
given  to  some  one  else.  In  well-governed  countries,  the 
amount  which  had  to  be  rendered  was  fixed  and  reason- 
able ;  but  this  very  fact  quickly  tended  to  obscure  its  origin. 
In  the  course  of  a  few  generations,  the  representative  would 
come  to  look  upon  his  district  as  his  ozun,  subject  to  pay- 
ment of  a  fixed  return,  or  rent. 

Profit. — For,  in  the  third  place,  the  State's  representa- 
tive was  from  the  first  intended  to  make  a  profit  out  of  his 
office.  The  wholesome  system  of  paying  State  officials  by 
fixed  salaries,  and  rigidly  demanding  an  account  of  all 
receipts,  is  a  very  modern  innovation  ;  and,  even  now,  is 
very  far  from  complete,  even  in  civilized  countries.  In  the 
early  days  of  the  State,  the  universal  practice  was  to 
covipotmd  with  the  official  for  a  fixed  sum,  and  to  let  him 
keep  all  the  surplus  which  he  could  collect.  There  was, 
therefore,  a  direct  inducement  to  the  official  to  increase  his 
demands  upon  the  people  he  was  set  to  govern.  And  this, 
also,  caused  him  to  look  upon  his  district  as  his  owtt. 

Land. — Finally,  it  must  again  be  remembered  that 
almost  everything  in  the  way  of  taxes  in  early  times  came 
directly  from  the  profits  of  agriculture.  In  other  words,  it 
came  direct  from  the  land.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that 
the  Crown's  representative  should  look  to  the  land  of  his 
subjects  as  the  real  security  for  the  tribute  he  intended  to 
collect.    And  this  point  of  view  had  two  important  results. 


lo6  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

as  population  increased  and  land  became,  accordingly,  more 
valuable.  It  made  it  very  tempting  for  a  lord  to  turn  out  one 
occupier  who  did  not  pay  his  tribute.  It  also  induced  him 
to  encourage  people  to  bring  fresh  land  into  cultivation, 
because  such  a  course  meant  more  tribute.  Such  fresh  set- 
tlements were  made  at  the  lord's  direction,  and,  of  course, 
within  the  limits  of  his  district.  By  thus  dealing  with  and 
disposing  of  the  land  of  his  district,  the  lord  became  more 
and  more  to  look  upon  himself,  and  to  be  looked  upon,  as 
the  owner  of  his  district.  The  "lord  of  land,"  as  the  old 
documents  call  him,  became  the  landlord  of  modern  times. 

It  may  be  said  by  hasty  observers  that  there  is  nothing 
really  of  importance  in  this  change,  that  it  is  really  the  old 
set  of  things  with  a  new  set  of  names,  that  "lord,"  and 
"man,"  and  "tribute,"  merely  become  "landlord,"  and 
"tenant,"  and  "rent."  But  a  moment's  thought  will  show 
this  to  be  a  fallacy.  It  assumes  that  the  value  of  lattd  will 
always  be  the  same  ;  whereas  it  is  notorious  that  the  value  of 
land  steadily  increases  with  the  increase  of  population,  i.  e., 
with  the  demands  made  upon  it.  And  the  question  is,  U'lto 
is  to  have  the  increase  in  value,  or,  as  it  is  often  called,  the 
unearned  increment?  Let  ^  represent  the  total  annual 
value  of  an  acre  of  land  in  the  thirteenth  century.  Let  a 
represent  the  amount  which  the  State  gets  in  tribute,  b  the 
amount  received  by  the  "  lord  "  (over  and  above  that  which 
he  pays  to  the  State),  y  the  amount  pocketed  by  the  occu- 
pier ;  and  suppose  a,  b  and  y  together  just  equal  x.  Now 
step  forward  six  centuries.  The  value  of  the  annual  pro- 
duce of  that  same  acre  may  possibly  be  quite  five  times  x-. 
Improved  methods  of  cultivation  have  rendered  it  much  more 
productive,  or  coal  has  been  found  under  it,  or  it  has  been 
wanted  for  building,  or  a  valuable  spring  of  water  has  been 
struck  on  it.  Into  whose  pockets  does  this  increase  go  ? 
And,  broadly  speaking,  all  the  world  over,  this  increase  has 
gone  into  the  pockets  of  the  landlord  class,  who  have  suc- 
ceeded in  treating  the  land  as  their  property.     As  a  general 


THE   STATE   AND   PROPERTY  107 

rule,  they  have  succeeded  in  preventing  the  State  from 
increasing  the  sum  payable  to  it  by  themselves  ;  only  in  a 
comparatively  small  number  of  cases  have  their  "  tenants" 
succeeded  in  preventing  them  exacting  increased  tribute,  in 
the  form  of  rent.  The  consequence  has  been  that,  whilst 
the  State  above  and  the  tenant  below  have  gained  compara- 
tively little  from  the  increase  in  the  value  of  land,  the  inter- 
mediate, or  landlord  class,  has  become  enormously  wealthy, 
especially  in  those  countries  in  which  progress  has  been 
greatest.  Landlordism  has  been  the  most  splendidly 
rewarded  of  all  political  services.  The  class  which  began 
as  revenue  collectors,  and  local  maintainers  of  order,  has 
become  owners  of  the  soil,  and  arbiters  of  the  comfort  and 
prosperity  of  millions  of  human  beings.  In  the  old  centres 
of  industry  the  position  of  the  landlord  is  much  less 
marked,  inasmuch  as  the  old  tribute  pressed  less  heavily 
on  the  urban  classes,  and  they  were  less  dependent  on  a 
particular  piece  of  soil  for  their  existence.  Nevertheless, 
the  existence  of  valuable  market  rights,  tolls  and  other 
town  privileges  in  the  hands  of  great  proprietors  reveals  the 
fact  that  the  tendencies  in  the  town  were  the  same  as  in 
the  country,  though  the  opportunities  were  less.  And, 
where  towns  have  grown  up  since  the  development  of  the 
institution  of  property  in  land,  the  profits  reaped  by  the 
fortunate  landlords  who  have  owned  property  in  their  sites 
have,  of  course,  been  colossal. 

2.  Dissolution  of  the  village  community.—  It  would, 
however,  be  quite  wrong  to  suppose  that  the  development 
of  lordship  into  landlordship  is  solely  accountable  for  the 
institution  of  property  in  land.  It  accounts  chiefly  for  great 
landowners ;  but  there  are  small  landowners  as  well  as 
great. 

In  a  sense,  as  we  have  seen,  the  ordinary  villager  of  the 
early  agricultural  epoch  was  in  one  sense  a  landowner.  That 
is  to  say,  he  probably  could  not,  in  most  cases,  be  turned 
out  of  his  land  so  long  as  he  conformed  to  the  village  cus- 


Zo8  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

toms,  so  long  as  he  paid,  in  the  form  of  labour  or  money, 
his  share  of  the  village  liabilities,  and  so  long  as  he  con- 
formed to  the  customs  of  the  village.  But  he  had  not  the 
two  important  rights  which  every  owner  oi  property  now 
looks  upon  as  part  of  his  ordinary  powers  ;  viz. ,  the  right  to 
dispose  of  his  interest  by  sale  or  gift,  and  the  right  to  use 
his  land  as  he  thinks  fit.  Under  these  two  heads  we  may 
consider  the  dissolution  of  the  village  community. 

(a)  Disposal  of  interest. — From  the  beginning  of  its 
history,  we  find  the  State  manifesting  a  dislike  to  the  village 
community.  The  military  character  of  the  State  inclines  it 
to  deal  with  individuals  rather  than  with  communities.  It 
prefers  to  deal  with  the  village  through  the  individual  lord ; 
where  it  recognizes  the  existence  of  the  village  group,  it 
deals  with  it  through  its  representatives  (as  we  shall  here- 
after see).  In  the  minds  of  the  early  kings  there  was, 
manifestly,  a  feeling  that  the  existence  of  the  village  brother- 
hood was,  in  a  way,  a  danger  to  its  own  authority.  There 
are  abundant  traces  in  the  Barbarian  Laws  of  a  determina- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  kings  that  the  village  shall  not  take 
upon  itself  to  punish  its  own  members.  Another  claim  the 
kings  obstinately  insist  upon  ;  viz.,  that  a  stranger,  furnished 
by  them  with  "letters  of  settlement,"  shall  be  allowed  to 
take  up  land  in  the  village.  In  early  times  there  was  no 
physical  difficulty  in  such  a  course ;  land  was  plentiful,  on 
the  borders  of  every  village  there  was  waste  land.  But  it 
was  hateful  to  the  villagers,  just  as  hateful  as  it  would  be  to 
a  modern  household  to  have  a  "paying  guest"  forcibly 
thrust  upon  it.  The  newcomer  might  be  a  spy  in  disguise  ; 
to  a  certain  extent  the  village  would  be  responsible  for  his 
misdeeds ;  he  would  probably  have  new-fangled  notions  of 
farming.     But  the  kings  got  their  way. 

Sales. — A  still  further  step  was  taken  when  the  State 
began  to  recognize  sales  of  village  land,  at  any  rate,  sales  to 
outsiders.  There  is  some  reason  to  believe  that,  inside  the 
village  group,  a  process  had  long  been  going  on  by  which 


THE   STATE   AND   PROPERTY  109 

several  holdings  had  accumulated  in  a  single  hand.  In  this 
way  we  may  account  for  the  appearance  of  the  prosperous 
yeoman  class,  which  is  such  a  striking  feature  of  the  later 
Middle  Ages  in  Europe.  But  to  sell  to  a  stranger  was  long 
forbidden,  and  only  after  a  severe  struggle  was  the  right 
established.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  most  power- 
ful ally  of  the  State  in  this  matter  was  the  Church,  which, 
though  provided  for  to  a  certain  extent  within  the  village 
system,  by  the  custom  of  paying  tithes,  succeeded  in  ac- 
quiring, by  private  gift,  immense  quantities  of  land.  In 
particular,  the  Church  was  clearly  responsible,  if  not  for  the 
invention,  at  least  for  the  rapid  development  of  the  practice 
of  leaving  lands  by  z£/z7/,»a  practice  which  probably  did  more 
than  anything  else  to  break  up  the  old  kinship  principles  on 
which  the  village  system  was  largely  based.  Finally,  the 
State  put  the  finishing  touch  on  the  legal  dissolution  of  the 
village  by  sanctioning  the  taking  of  a  debtor's  land  in  satis- 
faction of  his  debts.  This  was  not,  perhaps,  such  a  violent 
disregard  of  patriarchal  principles  as  might  at  first  sight  ap- 
pear. By  these  principles,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  42),  a  man's 
kindred  were  responsible  for  his  misdeeds,  and,  in  the  times 
of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  debts  were  usually  the  result 
of  failure  to  pay  the  blood-fine.  But  the  old  rule  was  that 
the  debtor  paid  with  his  body ;  his  land  never  left  the  clan. 
In  reversing  this  order  of  ideas,  in  giving  the  creditor  a 
remedy  against  the  debtor's  land,  the  State  was  dealing  a 
final  blow  at  the  communal  character  of  the  village. 

{b)  EnelOSUPe.— The  physical  side  of  the  dissolution 
took  the  form  of  the  enclosure  of  the  open  fields.  So  long 
as  the  lands  of  the  villagers  lay  in  scattered  strips  in  the 
open  fields  (p.  51),  so  long  was  there,  at  least  in  appearance, 
and,  to  some  extent,  in  practical  working,  a  community. 
Redistribution  of  the  lands  might  have  long  ceased,  but 
independent  farming  was  still  impossible.  A  man  whose 
land  consisted  of  fifty  or  sixty  little  strips  lying  mixed  among 
his  neighbour's  strips,  "hide-meal  and  acre-meal,"  could 


no  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

not  try  experiments,  could  not  use  his  own  discretion.  He 
had  to  follow  the  course  of  husbandry  sanctioned  by  the 
village  custom.  But,  towards  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
there  arose  all  over  Europe  a  controversy,  sometimes 
picturesquely  carried  on  in  verse,  between  what  was  called 
in  England  "champaign"  and  "several"  farming.  The 
former  was  the  old-fashioned  method  of  working  in  great 
open  fields  (^campi),  the  latter  the  modem  system  of  culti- 
vating in  small  compact  fields  enclosed  by  hedges.  Of 
course  the  advocates  of  the  new  plan  had  little  difficulty  in 
proving  its  superior  efficiency.  It  protected  the  diligent 
farmer  against  the  wastrel  who  let  his  patches  grow  thistles  ; 
it  enabled  the  enterprising  man  to  try  experiments  ;  it 
especially  allowed  him  to  keep  sheep  instead  of  growing 
corn  ;  it  thereby  enabled  him  to  economize  in  labour  (which 
was  then  scarce),  for  sheep-farming  employs  less  hands 
than  agriculture.  Of  course  the  reformers  got  their  way, 
and,  for  a  wonder,  the  reform  brought  artistic  value  with  it 
for  it  gave  us,  in  England  at  least,  the  exquisite  hedgerows 
which  are  the  glory  of  the  countryside.  Instead  of  a  bundle 
of  scattered  strips,  the  farmer  received  a  more  or  less 
compact  block  of  the  same  extent,  which  he  could  deal  with 
as  he  liked.*  But  the  change  was  the  end,  or  almost  the 
end,  of  the  village  community;  and  it  gave  us  property  in 
land  of  the  most  private  kind.  For  the  scattered  villagers, 
unless  (as  very  rarely  happened)  they  succeeded  in  throwing 
off  lordship  as  well  as  village  ties,  found  themselves,  after 
the  operation,  isolated  tcnafits  of  a  great  landowner,  with 
whom  alone  they  had  in  future  to  deal,  instead  of  members 
of  a  village  group,  subject  indeed  to  the  claims  of  lordship, 
but  strong  in  mutual  protection.    The  wealthier. of  them 


*  The  difference  between  land  held  on  the  old  "open-field"  system, 
and  the  same  land  after  an  "  enclosure"  will  be  graphically  realized 
by  a  comparison  of  Plates  A  and  B  appended  to  this  book.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  in  Plate  A  the  process  of  enclosure  has  only  begun ; 
in  Plate  B  it  has  been  completed. 


THE   STATE   AND   PROPERTY  in 

signified  their  new  attitude  by  moving  away  from  the  village 
proper  and  building  themselves  new  houses  in  the  centres 
of  their  new  farms.  The  village  became,  more  and  more, 
merely  the  abode  of  the  cottagers  ;  the  old  yeoman  houses 
fell  into  ruins,  or  were  divided  up  into  tenements  ;  class 
separation  became  more  marked  ;  the  labourers  became 
more  and  more  cvage-earners,  and  less  and  less  villagers 
having  an  interest  in  the  laiid.  Only  the  waste  or  common 
still  survived,  to  mark  the  ancient  character  of  the  village. 
In  later  times  that  has  also  in  many  cases  been  broken  up  ; 
and  the  village  has  become  the  ideal  of  the  individualist,  a 
place  in  which  every  man  "does  what  he  wills  with  his 
own." 

This  has  been  a  long  story,  and  a  difficult  story  to  tell; 
but  no  one  who  has  endeavoured  to  study  for  himself  the 
history  of  the  institution  of  property  will  ever  pretend  that  it 
is  an  easy  task  to  relate  it.  Two  points  have,  however,  it  is 
hoped,  been  made  clear.  One  is  that  the  institution  of 
property,  as  we  have  it  now,  is  no  sudden  invention,  which 
can  be  explained  in  an  epigrammatic  phrase  by  a  platform 
orator.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  outcome  of  a  long  chain 
of  historical  causes,  each  contributing  its  quoto  to  the 
complex  result.  To  the  elements,  previously  enumerated 
(p.  102),  oi  user,  production,  seizure,  exchange,  we  must  now 
add  the  elements  of  lordship,  revenue,  and  econo^nic  prog- 
ress, all  of  which  have  some  share  in  erecting  the  institu- 
tion of  property.  The  other  point  is,  that  while  physical, 
or,  as  we  may  perhaps  call  them,  natural  causes  contributed 
greatly  to  this  result,  the  most  powerful  factor  has  been  the 
development  of  that  particular  form  of  association  which  we 
term  the  State. 


CHAPTER  XI 
The  State  and  Justice 

We  are  so  accustomed  to  look  upon  the  administration  of 
justice  as  an  inevitable  duty  of  the  State,  that  it  requires  an 
effort  to  realize  that  this  state  of  things  also,  like  the  rest  of 
our  modern  social  organization,  is  the  result  of  historical 
growth.  Now-a-days,  all  justice  is  (broadly  speaking) 
administered  in  England  in  the  name  of  the  Queen,  that  is, 
of  the  Head  of  the  State.     But  it  was  not  always  so. 

Old  ideas  of  justice.  — As  we  have  already  seen  (p. 
42),  the  first  notion  of  justice  was  that  it  consisted  oi  revenge 
or  retaliation.  The  blood  feud  was  the  earliest  type  of  judi- 
cial machinery,  at  least  so  far  as  private  offences  were  con- 
cerned. For  offences  so  gross  that  they  outraged  the  moral 
sense  of  the  community,  there  remained  the  drastic  remedy 
of  expulsion  from  the  community,  by  the  community  itself. 

We  have  also  seen  (p.  42)  that  the  first  step  towards  a 
milder  state  of  things  was  the  substitution  of  the  blood-fine 
or  tnoney-paynient  for  the  exercise  of  revenge.  The  earliest 
offences  were  nearly  all  offences  of  violence ;  therefore  tlie 
remedy  of  revenge  was  obvious  and  natural.  When  the 
development  of  the  notion  oi  property  made  theft  a  prominent 
offence,  restitution  was  naturally  suggested  ;  and  this  fact, 
together  with  a  perception  of  the  evils  oi  revenge,  may  have 
led  to  a  general  acceptance  of  the  money-payinent  system. 
As  we  have  before  said,  early  codes  of  law  are  often  mainly 
composed  of  elaborate  tables  of  fines  to  be  exacted  for 
particular  offences. 

(112) 


THE    STATE   AND   JUSTICE  113 

Absence  of  authoritative  tribunals.— But  it  is  to 

be  observed  that,  in  patriarchal  society,  there  never  seems 
to  have  been  any  authority  capable  of  enforcing  the  money- 
payment  system.  It  was  a  voluntary  system.  The  elders  of 
the  tribe  or  clan  seem  to  have  acted  as  a  persuasive  body, 
urging  the  parties  to  receive  and  pay  respectively  the  sum 
which  they  (the  elders)  declared  to  be  the  proper  fine  for 
the  offence.  But  if  their  persuasions  failed,  the  parties  were 
entitled  to  resort  to  the  feud.  Imagine  a  modern  judge 
"persuading "  Mi.  William  Sikes  to  "make  it  up "  with  the 
relatives  of  his  victim,  and,  on  his  remaining  obdurate, 
leaving  the  two  families  to  fight  the  matter  out.  Yet  this 
course,  quaint  as  it  seems  to  us,  is  quite  in  accord  with  the 
ideas  of  patriarchal  justice. 

Not  applicable  to  public  offences.— And  it  is  also  to 
be  observed  that  the  system  of  fines  did  not  touch  public 
offences.  They  were  significantly  described  by  the  Teutonic 
tribes  as  bootless  wrongs,  i.  e.,  wrongs  for  which  no  bot  or 
payment  could  atone.  When  they  were  perpetrated,  the 
tribe  or  clan  arose  in  its  wrath,  raised  the  hue  mid  cry,  and 
expelled  the  offender  from  its  midst.  This  distinction  is  of 
vital  importance  ;  it  was  the  germ  of  the  modern  distinction 
between  the  crime  which  is  prosecuted  by  the  State,  and 
the  civil  wrong  which  is  left  to  be  brought  before  the  Courts 
by  the  injured  party. 

Survivals  of  the  notion  of  revenge.— The  funda- 
mental notion  that  a  private  wrong  gave  rise  to  a  lawful 
exercise  of  revenge,  unless  the  parties  could  be  persuaded 
to  "swear  the  peace,"  lingered  to  the  very  end  of  patriarchal 
times,  and  even  passed  over  into  political  society.  One  of 
its  m.ost  curious  manifestations  was  the  right  of  reprisal 
practiced  by  merchants  till  quite  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
If  an  Antwerp  merchant,  for  example,  did  not  pay  a  debt 
which  he  owed  to  a  Bristol  merchant,  the  Bristol  merchant's 
gild  seized  the  goods  of  any  other  Antwerp  merchant  who 
was  unlucky  enough  to  be  in  Bristol  at  the  time.     And  in 


114  A   SHORT   HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

_/«<£fo/ jurisdictions  the  trial  by  battle,  which  is,  of  course, 
only  a  modified  form  of  tlie  blood-feud,  lingered  until  feudal 
jurisdictions  were  themselves  swept  away. 

Action  of  the  State.  — But  in  the  matter  of  bootless 
crimes,  the  State  very  early  began  to  make  itself  felt.  It  is 
very  probable  that  the  old  communal  remedy  was  not 
rigorously  enforced.  What  is  every  one's  business  is  no 
one's  business ;  and  so,  no  doubt,  many  a  heinous  ofTender 
escaped.  But,  even  if  it  was  enforced,  the  result  would  not 
be  satisfactory  to  the  State.  The  State  did  not  want  to  lose 
its  men,  even  if  they  were  criminals.  They  might  have 
been  very  good  soldiers,  for  all  that  they  were  violent 
members  of  society.  And  so  we  find  the  practice  growing 
up  of  the  State  "redeeming  the  offender  from  the  forest," 
as  the  Swedish  laws  put  it,  i.  e.,  of  letting  him  return  from 
banishment  or  submitting  to  a  penalty  or  punishmatt.  The 
hue  and  cry  was  raised  at  the  instance  of  the  State's  offi- 
cial ;  but  the  offender,  when  caught,  was  punished  and 
allowed  to  return.  This  practice  developed  ultimately  into 
the  process  known  as  outlawiy  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
became  exceedingly  popular  with  the  State  ;  because  by  a 
train  of  reasoning  which  it  is  easy  to  follow,  the  outlaw's 
goods  were  forfeited  to  the  king. 

The  King's  peace.— But  the  royal  justice  received  a 
great  impetus  from  the  development  of  another  idea,  the 
idea  of  the  King' s  peace.  It  was  quite  natural  that  a  mili- 
tary ruler  should  sternly  resent  anything  like  disorder  or 
violence.  Hence  the  State  soon  lays  down  the  doctrine  that 
all  offences  of  violence  are  offences  against  the  State  — 
"against  the  peace  of  our  Sovereign  Lady  the  Queen,"  as 
a  modern  indictment  puts  it.  And  a  man  who  offends 
against  the  State  must  expect  punishment.  In  connection 
with  this  idea  comes  in  the  institution  of  sanctuary,  so 
important  a  modifier  of  violence  in  primitive  society.  A 
man  has,  perhaps  accidentally,  caused  the  death  of  another. 
Fearing  the  vengeance  of  the  dead  man's  kindred,  he  files 


THE   STATE   AND    JUSTICE  115 

to  the  nearest  place  of  refuge,  and  claims  the  protection 
of  its  master.  The  process  is  exactly  described  in  the 
Mosaic  books  of  the  Old  Testament,*  and  is  immensely 
important  in  introducing  the  distinction  between  inten- 
tional and  accidental  violence.  In  the  case  of  the  Jews, 
the  sanctuary  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  Church  (the 
Levites)  ;  and  in  medieval  history  the  Church's  peace 
also  played  a  great  part  in  the  suppression  of  the  blood- 
feud.  But,  in  the  end,  the  King's  peace  became  the  most 
important,  because  it  was  the  most  powerful.  An  amusing 
modern  form  of  the  idea  has  manifested  itself  in  Persia, 
where  the  introduction  of  the  telegraph  has  enabled  a  sup- 
pliant to  appeal  to  the  Shah  for  sanctuary  from  a  great  dis- 
tance. Every  one  has  a  right  to  approach  the  Shah  by 
telegram  if  he  prepays  a  reply.  The  man  who  apprehends 
violence  goes  to  the  telegraph  office,  dispatches  his  appeal, 
and  sits  down  to  await  the  answer.  As  things  in  Persia 
move  with  deliberation,  this  is  probably  several  days  in 
arriving.  But  as  the  telegraph  office  is  the  Shah's  property, 
it  is  sanctuary ;  and  the  suppliant,  so  long  as  he  remains 
there,  is  safe.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing,  therefore,  to 
see  a  little  group  of  suppliants,  fortified  with  food  and 
drink  by  their  relatives,  crouching  in  the  telegraph  office, 
while  a  corresponding  group  of  avengers  of  blood  waits 
eagerly  outside. 

Extension  of  the  King's  peace.— But  it  is  quite  easy, 
by  a  little  clever  elaboration  of  the  idea  of  the  King' s 
peace,  to  make  it  cover  a  whole  multitude  of  offences  which 
are  not  really  crimes  of  violence  at  all.  Take,  for  instance, 
the  offence  of  theft,  which  is  not  usually  accompanied  by 
violence,  and  was  originally,  and  in  its  nature,  a  private 
offence  against  individuals.  But  the  State  says  that  a  theft, 
successful  or  unsuccessful,  is  apt  to  lead  to  reprisals,  and 
reprisals  mean  v.oletice,  and  therefore  theft  is  an  offence 


*  Numbers  xxxv.  6-33 ;  Deut.  xix. ;  Joshua  xx. 


Il6  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

against  the  Kitii^'s  peace.  After  the  king  has  been  satis- 
fied, tlie  injured  party  or  his  relatives  may  claim  compensa- 
tion ;  but  it  is  generally  found  that,  after  the  king  has  been 
satisfied,  there  is  not  much  left  for  any  one  else.  And  so 
thefi  and  such  like  offences  become  purely  matters  of  crimi- 
nal or  public  law. 

Tpeason. — Thirdly,  the  State,  as  a  military  institution, 
is  peculiarly  concerned  with  the  allegiance  of  its  subjects. 
Anything  that  can  be  considered  as  a  betrayal  or  defiance 
of  allegiance  is  a  direct  attack  upon  its  security,  and  is 
directly  visited  by  it  with  punishment.  Thus  arises  the 
law  of  Ireasofi.  And  if  we  put  together  offences  of  peculiar 
enormity,  offences  against  the  peace  and  treason,  we  get 
the  bulk  of  criminal  law,  at  least  in  early  times.  That  is 
to  say,  we  get  the  bulk  of  that  law  which  the  State  itself 
enforces,  as  opposed  to  that  law  which'  is  enforced  by 
private  individuals. 

The  State  and  private  offences.— The  appearance 
of  the  State  in  private  lazusiiits  is  much  later,  and  we  find  an 
important  intermediate  stage  between  the  moot  of  the  elders, 
with  its  merely  persuasive  power,  and  the  tribunal  of  the 
State  itself.  This  was  the  court  of  the  feudal  lord.  Partly, 
no  doubt,  this  result  was  due  to  the  action  of  the  State  in 
entrusting  the  maintenance  of  order  in  the  local  districts  to 
its  representatives ;  still  more,  perhaps,  it  was  due  to  the 
State's  representative  stepping  into  the  shoes  of  the  old 
tribal  or  clan  chief,  who,  of  course,  presided  over  the  moot 
of  the  elders.  The  result  of  the  combination  was  a  very 
tenacious  and  powerful  jurisdiction,  which  ultimately  be- 
came a  serious  rival  to  the  State.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was 
military  in  character  ;  for  its  president  was  really  the  State's 
representative,  and  was  endowed  with  a  certain  amount  of 
military  force.  Hence  it  was  comparatively  easy  for  him  to 
stamp  out  the  blood-feud,  and  to  compel  the  parties  to  it  to 
bring  their  quarrels  before  him.  Then,  after  due  inquiry, 
and  if  compromise  was  impossible,  it  could  be  settled  by  a 


THE    STATE    AND    JUSTICE  117 

final  and  conclusive  combat  or  battle,  fought  under  strict 
conditions.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  patriarchal  also  ;  for 
it  followed  the  lines  of  the  old  patriarchal  settlements,  and 
it  comprised  (at  least  in  cases  where  freemen  were  in- 
terested) the  homage  of  the  fief,  whom  we  may  strongly 
suspect  to  have  been  largely  identical  with  the  elders  of  the 
clan.  A  curious  popular  mistake  has  arisen  on  this  point,  in 
connection  with  the  expression,  "trial  by  one's  peers." 
This  is  usually  taken  to  mean  "trial  by  jury."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  was  a  phrase  used  to  express'  abhorrence  of  trial 
by  jury,  which,  at  the  time  when  it  became  prominent,  was  a 
very  unpopular  innovation,  introduced  by  the  royal  officials. 
"Trial  by  peers"  really  means  "trial  by  the  men  of  one's 
fief;  "  and  it  was  a  cry  of  feudalism  against  the  new  royal 
justice.  Feudal  jurisdiction  in  private  lawsuits  for  a  while 
reigned,  in  fact,  supreme ;  and,  even  in  criminal  matters,  it 
succeeded  in  acquiring  some  part  of  the  royal  jurisdiction. 
But  the  kings  held  on  very  tight  to  criminal  justice,  and 
preferred  to  do  their  local  work  in  such  matters  by  means  of 
subordinate  agents,  such  as  the  sheriffs,  who  also  gradually 
took  away  from  the  feudal  lords  much  of  their  jurisdiction  in 
military  and  revenue  matters.  Ultimately  they  also  became  • 
too  powerful,  and  were  superseded  by  the  itinerant  judges 
(for  judicial  matters),  by  Exchequer  officials  (for  revenue), 
and  by  royal  lieutenants  or  governors  (for  military  affairs). 
At  least  this  was  so  where  the  State  succeeded  in  stamping 
ont  feudalisni. 

StFuggrle  between  the  State  and  feudalism.— For 
it  is  one  of  the  ironies  of  history  that  the  State  has,  in 
almost  all  progressive  countries,  been  obliged  to  enter  into 
a  death  struggle  with  a  system  which  it  has  itself  been  the 
main  instrument  in  creating.  In  some  cases  it  has  been 
successful,  in  other  cases  it  has  succumbed  in  the  task  ;  but 
in  all  cases  the  struggle  has  been  severe.  There  were  two 
main  objections  to  feudalism  from  a  political  aspect. 

The  first  of  these  was  its  disintegrating  character.    I<eft 


Il8  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

to  itself,  feudalism  would  have  split  the  State  in  pieces.  In 
fact  it  did  so  in  some  cases,  notably  in  the  case  of  the 
medieval  German  Empire,  where  the  great  fiefs  ultimately 
became  independent  States.  The  reason  is  not  very  far  to 
seek.  The  inhabitants  of  a  feudal  district  became  so  accus- 
tomed to  look  upon  their  lord  as  their  earthly  providence 
that  they  lost  sight  of  the  power  above  him.  They  assem- 
bled under  his  banner,  paid  their  taxes  to  him,  and  were 
judged  in  his  Courts  ;  they  hardly  recognized  the  existence 
of  the  State  at  all.  Consequently,  if  a  quarrel  arose  be- 
tween their  lord  and  the  king,  they  were  quite  as  likely  to 
support  the  former  as  the  latter.  It  was  one  of  the  great 
secrets  of  the  stability  of  the  English  throne  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  that  the  kings  very  early  and  very  skilfully,  the 
circumstances  favouring  them,  put  an  end  to  this  kind  of 
thing.  They  insisted  that  all  military  service  should  be 
rendered  to  themselves,  and  themselves  only.  They  estab- 
lished a  new  system  of  taxation  which,  while  it  relieved  the 
feudal  lords  of  a  great  deal  of  financial  responsibility, 
deprived  them  of  their  former  position  of  tax-gatherers. 
And,  finally  (and  this  is  the  line  we  have  now  to  follow), 
they  took  away  from  them  the  administration  of  justice. 

In  this  they  were  greatly  helped  by  the  second  objection 
to  feudalism ;  viz.,  its  hereditary  character.  The  right  to 
hold  a  feudal  court  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  piece  of 
property,  valuable  because  it  yielded  a  substantial  income. 
When  we  notice  the  eagerness  of  the  State  to  get  hold  of 
the  administration  of  justice,  we  must  not  suppose  that  it 
was  entirely,  or  even  principally,  because  of  the  desire  to 
supply  pure  justice  to  the  people.  It  was  mainly  due  to  a 
desire  to  secure  the  profits  of  jurisdiction.  In  early  times, 
presidents,  judges  and  officials,  as  well  as  advocates  and 
pleaders,  were  paid  hy  fees,  often,  it  is  to  be  feared,  by 
bribes.  The  more  business,  the  more  fees.  Hence  the 
desire  to  enlarge  jurisdiction.  Possibly  this  competition 
for  the  supply  of  justice  would  be  a  good  thing  if  all  liti- 


THE   STATE    AND   JUSTICE  119 

gants  honestly  desired  the  best  tribunals.  Unfortunately 
there  are  always  dishonest  litigants,  who  are  only  too  glad 
to  resort  to  corrupt,  ignorant  and  dilatory  tribunals.  Still, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  bound  to  admit  that  the  State 
Justice  has,  in  the  end,  succeeded  in  superseding  Clan 
Justice,  Feudal  Justice,  Merchant's  Justice,  and  even  Eccle- 
siastical Justice,  because  on  the  whole  it  has  proved  itself 
better  than  any  other.  Its  superiority  has  consisted  chiefly 
in  three  qualities. 

1.  StFength.  —  We  have  seen  that  the  oldest  type  of 
law  court,  the  moot  of  the  elders,  was  a  voluntary  tribunal. 
If  the  accused  party  did  not  choose  to  attend  the  summons 
of  his  opponent,  or  to  obey  the  doom  of  the  court,  the  court 
could  not  compel  him.  It  had  no  executive  machinery. 
Now  a  voluntary  tribunal  may  be  all  very  well  when  both 
parties  to  a  quarrel  are  perfectly  bond  fide,  and  honestly 
wish  to  obtain  a  fair  decision.  But,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten, 
one  party  is  not  bo7idfide.  He  wants  to  gain  time  by  delay, 
or  fraud,  or  obstinacy.  A  voluntary  tribunal  can  do  noth- 
ing with  him.  But  the  royal  officials  would  not  stand  any 
nonsense.  If  a  litigant  would  not  obey  their  summons,  his 
goods,  and  even  his  land  were  seized,  and,  in  the  last  resort, 
he  was  put  in  prison  against  the  day  of  trial.  So  likewise 
with  the  judgment.  If  the  litigant  refused  to  obey,  the 
judgment  was  enforced  against  his  property  and  his  person. 
Of  course  the  feudal  tribunals  had  also,  to  a  limited  extent, 
this  coercive  power ;  but  it  was  the  absence  of  it  which 
really  proved  the  undoing  of  the  tribunals  of  the  clan,  the 
gild  and  the  Church. 

2.  Skill. — Again  the  royal  officials,  chosen  from  a  wider 
field  and  selected  exclusively  for  ability,  naturally  attained 
a  much  higher  level  of  judicial  skill  than  the  elders  of  the 
moot,  chosen  mainly  for  their  age,  the  feudal  noble  who  had 
inherited  his  position,  or  the  ecclesiastic  chosen  for  his  piety. 
No  doubt  the  feudal  baron  and  the  ecclesiastic  had  also  their 
officials  ;  they  did  not  always  decide  cases  in  person.     But 


I20  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

it  is  very  unlikely  that  these  were  as  skilful  as  the  king's 
officials.  Roughly  speaking,  the  biggest  employer  gets  the 
best  servants  ;  and  the  king  was  by  far  the  biggest  employer 
of  labour  in  judicial  matters.  There  were  many  feudal 
barons  and  many  bishops  and  archdeacons  ;  but  there  was 
only  one  king.  One  very  striking  evidence  of  the  supe- 
riority of  the  royal  over  the  feudal  and  popular  courts  in 
the  matter  of  official  skill  is  the  fact  that,  until  compara- 
tively late  in  history,  the  royal  courts  alone  kept  records 
of  their  proceedings  in  writing. 

5.  Simplicity. — One  of  the  most  erroneous  notions  about 
primitive  judicial  procedure  is  that  it  is  simple  a.nd.  straight- 
forward. When  it  is  actually  examined,  it  is  found  to  be 
full  of  traps  and  pitfalls.  The  parties  must  use  exactly  the 
prescribed  forms  of  words  ;  a  slip  or  stammer  will  prove 
fatal.  This  is  extremely  natural  when  we  remember  that 
the  oldest  form  of  judicial  procedure  is  a  substitute  for  a 
fight,  and  that,  in  a  fight,  the  object  of  each  man  is  to  catch 
his  opponent  tripping.  Moreover,  the  parties  must  only 
proceed  upon  the  correct  days,  or  the  whole  proceedings 
will  be  worthless.  The  story  of  the  Roman  augurs,  who 
succeeded  in  keeping  secret  the  whole  of  the  legal  forms  and 
the  lists  of  correct  Court  days,  so  that  no  one  dare  go  to  law 
without  consulting  them,  is  thoroughly  characteristic  of 
primitive  procedure.  It  is,  as  the  Germans  say,  emphatically 
tnit  C^a^r  ("with  risk").  But  the  royal  officials,  though 
they  were  not  free  from  official  pedantry,  swept  away  much 
of  the  ancient  Abracadabra  of  legal  procedure.  They 
announced  openly  the  days  on  which  they  would  hold  courts, 
and,  upon  reasonable  payment,  issued  correct  forms. 

Still  more  did  they  improve  and  simplify  the  actual  method 
of  trial.  Broadly  speaking,  after  the  blood-feud  had  died 
out,  or  had  subsided  into  the  trial  by  combat,  the  ancient 
tribunals  knew  only  two  other  methods  of  trial.  If  the 
accused  was  respectable,  he  was  allowed  to  clear  himself  by 
his  own  oathy  and  that  of  a  prescribed  number  of  his  rela- 


THE   STATE   AND   JUSTICE  121 

fives,  who  now  swore  for  him  instead  of  fighting  with  him. 
If  he  was  a  serf,  or  a  man  who  bore  a  bad  reputation,  he  was 
compelled  to  submit  to  the  ordeal,  e.  g.,  to  plunge  his  arm 
into  boiling  water,  to  walk  blindfolded  over  red-hot  plough- 
shares, or  to  lift  a  mass  of  red-hot  iron.  If  he  was  injured 
in  the  process,  he  was  held  guilty  ;  if  he  escaped,  he  was 
pronounced  innocent.  As  has  been  well  remarked,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  a  man  could  have  been  convicted  by  the 
oath  (unless  his  kinsmen  made  a  slip  in  the  form),  or  have 
been  acquitted  by  the  ordeal  (unless  the  officials  were 
bribed).  In  any  case,  the  whole  trial  was,  as  we  should 
think ,  a  mere  farce. 

The  royal  officials  introduced  greatly  improved  methods. 
Without  entirely  discarding  the  trial  by  combat,  they  offered 
attractive  alternatives.  For  example,  they  allowed  proof  of 
the  complainant's  accusation  or  the  defendant's  denial  by 
record,  i.  e.,  by  appeal  to  the  written  files  of  the  Court  itself, 
or  to  solemn  documents.  By  this  means  they  indirectly  did 
much  to  encourage  the  use  of  writing  in  daily  transactions. 
Again,  they  insisted  that  certain  transactions  should  be  con- 
ducted before  witnesses ;  and  then  the  witnesses  could,  of 
course,  be  produced  in  Court  to  settle  disputes.  But  their 
most  famous  innovation  was  the  trial  by  jury,  or  trial  con- 
cluded by  the  answer  given  by  a  small  body  of  neighbors, 
to  a  question  put  to  them  by  a  royal  official.  This  famous 
institution,  about  which  much  nonsense  has  been  talked, 
seems  to  have  been  originally  a  royal  privilege,  inherited  by 
the  Emperor  Charles  the  Great  from  the  decaying  Roman 
Empire,  and  spread  by  his  officials  throughout  western 
Europe.  If  the  Emperor  suspected  that  any  of  the  Imperial 
rights  in  any  district  had  been  misappropriated,  his  officials 
could  compel  the  neighbors  to  attend  and  answer  on  oath  any 
questions  put  to  them  concerning  it.  Needless  to  say,  it  was 
at  first  an  intensely  unpopular  institution,  both  with  the  men 
who,  as  we  should  say,  "sat  on  the  jury,"  and  the  people 
whose  misdoings  were  thus  revealed.     But   it  suited  ad- 


122  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

mirably  the  purpose  of  the  State,  and  was  taken  up  by 
king  after  king  in  western  Europe.  In  return  for  a  sub- 
stantial payment,  the  kings  sold  to  private  litigants  the 
privilege  of  using  it ;  but,  of  course,  it  could  only  be  used 
under  the  presidency  of  a  royal  official,  for  the  jury  would 
not  obey  the  summons  of  any  one  else.  After  it  had  been 
in  use  some  years  for  royal  business,  e.  g. ,  revenue  matters 
and  criminal  prosecutions,  honest  litigants  began  to  see  the 
advantage  of  it,  and  to  employ  it  extensively.  But  its 
originally  limited  character  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  in 
criminal  cases,  it  was  long  before  the  prisoner  could  be  cofn- 
pelled  io  submit  to  a  trial  by  jury  ;  and  the  earliest  criminal 
jury  was  one  of  accusation  only  {grand  jury),  not  of  trial. 
Gradually,  however,  as  people  began  to  see  that  trial  by  jury 
was  a  preferable  alternative  to  being  smuggled  out  of  the 
way  by  the  royal  officials,  or  being  left  to  languish  in  prison, 
or  taking  their  chance  amid  the  pitfalls  of  feudal  procedure 
or  in  W\Q.  judicial  combat,  trial  by  jury  became  "popular" 
in  the  modern  sense,  and  was  regarded  as  a  bulwark  oj 
liberty.  Unfortunately,  in  many  countries  it  died  out 
altogether,  just  because  at  the  critical  moment  the  State 
(i.  e.,  the  king)  was  too  weak  to  urge  its  adoption.  So  it 
has  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  peculiarly  English  institution. 
But  it  was  not  so  originally. 

By  these  means  tlie  State  succeeded  in  most  progressive 
countries  in  getting  into  its  own  hands  the  business  of 
administering  justice.  We  may  date  this  achievement, 
roughly  speaking,  by  the  Reformation,  when  the  struggle 
with  the  Church  got  rid,  even  in  Catholic  countries,  of  the 
last  formidable  rival  to  the  State  jurisdiction.  In  some  cases 
the  State  abolished  the  local  courts  altogether  and  set  up 
new  ones  of  its  own.  This  was  what  happened  in  France, 
and  it  led  to  consequences  which  were  disastrous,  but  which 
are  too  technical  to  explain  here.  In  other  cases,  notably 
in  England,  the  State  pursued  the  much  easier  plan  of  con- 
verting the  local  tribunals  into  tribunals  of  its  own,  thus,  to 


THE   STATE   AND   JUSTICE  123 

a    great  extent,    preserving    that    cotitittuity    which    is    so 
important  a  factor  in  political  progress. 

We  have  now  to  answer  the  important  question,  What 
was  the  law  administered  by  these  various  tribunals  ?  But 
this  question  must  be  reserved  for  a  separate  chapter.  It 
involves  a  treatment  Oi  the  important  subject  of  political 
representation. 


CHAPTER  XII 
The    State   and   Legislation 

As  WE  have  before  stated  (p.  41),  the  notion  that  law 
could  be  made  was  unknown  to  primitive  society.  The 
rudimentary  idea  of  law,  as  it  presented  itself  to  people  in 
the  patriarchal  stage,  was  that  of  a  custom  or  observance, 
sanctioned  by  the  approval  and  practice  of  ancestors.  At 
first  this  idea,  like  everything  else  in  patriarchal  society, 
was  purely  personal ;  a  man's  custom  or  law  was  the  cus- 
tom of  his  tribe  or  clan.  Comparatively  late  in  European 
history,  the  rule  was  gravely  admitted  that  each  man  was 
entitled  to  be  judged  by  the  law  of  his  race  or  folk,  no 
matter  where  he  might  be.  There  is  even  a  faint  survival 
of  the  notion  in  civilized  countries  at  the  present  day. 
That  most  persistent  of  all  patriarchal  societies,  the  Jew- 
ish, retains  to  a  certain  extent  its  tribal  law  in  the  Gentile 
cities  of  the  West. 

But,  for  the  most  part,  the  development  of  agriculticre, 
aided  by  the  later  development  of  feudalism,  made  law 
a  local  rather  than  a  personal  thing.  Instead  of  the 
custom  of  the  clan,  people  began  to  speak  and  think  of  the 
custom  of  the  village,  the  custom  of  the  fief,  and  the  cus- 
tom of  the  toivn.  The  personal  idea  slill  lingered  ;  there 
was  a  strong  feeling  that  no  one  could  claim  the  custom  of 
the  village  but  a  villager,  of  the  fief  but  a  vassal,  of  the 
town  but  a  burgher.  But  this  element  gradually  dwindled, 
as  residence  took  the  place  r.f  blood  in  the  organization  of 
society. 

(124) 


THE   STATE    AND    LEGISLATION  125 

It  is  necessary,  however,  most  carefully  to  remember 
that,  when  we  speak  of  law  being  local,  we  do  not  mean 
that  the  same  law  applied  to  large  areas.  If,  for  example, 
we  were  to  speak  of  the  law  of  France,  or  the  Law  0/ 
Germany,  in  connection  with  the  tenth  century,  we  should 
betray  great  historical  ignorance.  In  the  tenth  century, 
every  little  district,  almost  every  village  and  town,  in 
France,  Germany,  Spain,  and  even  in  England,  had  its  own 
special  law.  In  England,  for  reasons  which  we  are  about 
to  point  out,  this  state  of  things  was  modified  very  early ; 
yet,  even  in  modern  England,  at  this  very  day,  as  all  law- 
yers know,  there  are  hundreds  of  different  village  laws, 
or  rather  niaiiorial,  lazus,  which,  under  the  name  of  copy- 
hold customs,  regulate  important  questions  of  property. 
And  in  France,  Germany,  Spain  and  other  countries,  there 
was  no  national  law  till  the  end  of  the  last  century. 

Three  great  agencies  gradually  swept  away  this  (as  we 
should  think)  intolerable  state  of  affairs,  and  created  the 
modern  system  of  law  and  of  legislation. 

I.  Records. — From  the  early  Middle  Ages,  and  from  all 
parts  of  Europe,  there  survive  to  us  a  deeply  interesting 
body  or  collection  of  codes,  folk-laws  as  they  are  called,  or 
Leges  Barbarorum,.  We  have  them  for  the  Teutonic  king- 
doms of  Italy  and  Spain,  for  Bavaria,  Saxony,  Burgundy, 
Frankland,  Swabia,  Frisia,  England,  Wales,  Ireland,  even 
(to  a  slight  extent)  for  Scotland,  Denmark,  Sweden  and 
Norway,  and  many  other  districts.  Though  their  actual 
dates  differ  very  widely,  they  nearly  all  come  from  the 
same  relative  period  in  the  history  of  each  country;  viz., 
the  period  at  which  the  tribal  settlement  is  first  becoming 
a  fixed  kingdom,  under  a  conquering  king.  That  is  to  say, 
they  come  from  the  very  earliest  days  of  the  State,  They 
are  due,  almost  universally,  to  one  and  the  same  cause ; 
viz.,  the  desire  of  the  conqueror  to  know  the  customs  of  his 
conquered  subjects.  In  many  cases  he  has  formally 
promised  to  respect  these  customs ;  in  no  case  does  he  pro- 


126  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

pose  to  sweep  them  away.  But  lie  must  know  what  they 
are  ;  he  cannot  respect  what  he  does  not  know. 

And  so  we  see  that  the  so-called  Barbarian  Codes  are 
not  legislation,  in  the  sense  of  law-making ;  but  statements 
or  declarations  of  custom.  In  nearly  all  cases,  they  are 
drawn  up  as  the  result  of  a  formal  and  careful  inquiry 
amongst  those  chiefs  and  elders  who  are  supposed  specially 
to  know  the  customs  of  their  people.  ( 

Impoptanee  of  the  step.— Nevertheless,  the  drawing 
up  of  these  customs  was  a  momentous  event  in  the  history 
of  La'iV.  As  we  have  seen  (p.  41),  unwritten  custom  docs 
alter  ;  but  it  alters  itself  automatically  and  imperceptibly.  No 
one  is  sacrilegious  enough  to  propose  deliberately  to  alter  it. 
But  written  custom  cannot  be  altered  imperceptibly ;  it  is 
always  possible  to  point  to  the  exact  text,  and  show  what  it 
says.  Nevertheless  customs  viust  alter  in  a  progressive 
society  ;  and  so  it  was  necessary  to  have  successive  editions 
of  the  written  Codes,  as  in  fact  happened.  Thus  people 
came  gradually  to  accept  the  idea  that  custom  could  be 
altered;  and  occasionally  they  even  allowed  the  king,  by 
way  of  bargain  or  agreement,  to  introduce  certain  deliberate 
alterations.  No  doubt  a  good  many  more  alterations  were 
secretly  slipped  in  by  the  royal  scribes  who  drew  up  the 
Codes.  We  must  remember  the  enormous  respect  paid  in 
primitive  times  to  the  newly  discovered  art  of  writing ;  a 
written  document  was  looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  charm  or 
magic  power.  To  say  of  a  rule — "it  is  written,"  was  to  claim 
for  it  almost  a  sacred  character.  We  have  all  heard  of  the 
Hindu  who  carried  a  doctor's  prescription  about  on  his 
person,  instead  of  taking  it  to  the  apothecary  to  be  made  up. 
That  is  characteristic  of  the  veneration  with  which  primitive 
people  regard  written  documents.  And  so  we  may  very 
well  suppose  that,  if  a  passage  was  found  in  a  written  code, 
no  inquiry  would  be  permitted  as  to  how  it  got  there. 

2.  Law  Courts. —  We  have  seen,  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  how  the  State  gradually  acquired  the  business  of 


THE    STATE   AND    LEGISLATION  127 

administering  y«^//r^.  And,  in  the  main,  the  royal  officials, 
in  performing  this  business,  honestly  tried  to  decide  cases 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  place  in  which  they  happened 
to  be.  But  they  naturally  became  confused  and  impatient 
with  the  innumerable  petty  differences  of  local  custom,  and 
leaned,  perhaps  unconsciously,  in  favour  of  uniformity. 
Especially  was  this  the  case  with  the  itinerant  or  circuit 
judges,  to  whom  allusion  has  been  made  (p.  117).  Being 
attached  to  no  particular  locality,  they  were  free  from  local 
prejudice ;  and,  as  they  gathered  round  the  royal  chair  at 
the  end  of  their  journeys,  they  probably  discussed  with 
one  another  the  difficulties  of  their  task,  and  came  to  some 
agreement  on  general  principles.  What  they  probably  did 
was  to  take  some  general  rule,  which  represented  the 
average  practice  of  the  local  communities,  and  agree  to 
ignore  local  differences  as  much  as  possible.  In  this  way, 
at  any  rate,  the  English  common  law  seems  to  have  been 
modelled  ;  it  was  the  law  which  was  common  to  all  the  dis- 
tricts of  the  kingdom.  Where  a  local  custom  was  very  tena- 
cious, it  was  allowed  to  prevail  in  its  particular  district.  And 
it  is  very  significant  that  copyhold  customs  (p.  125)  were  not 
harmonized,  because  the  royal  judges  did  not  decide  copyhold 
cases  till  quite  late  in  history.  And  the  reason  why,  on  the 
Continent,  there  was  no  common  law  for  centuries  later  than 
in  England,  was  just  because,  on  the  Continent,  the  State 
did  not  get  hold  of  the  administration  of  justice  till  centuries 
after  it  had  done  so  in  England.  But,  to  show  that  the 
process  was  not  peculiar  to  England,  we  may  point  out  that 
the  same  result  had  occurred  at  a  similar  stage  of  Roman 
history  ;  where  the  customs  selected  and  harmonized  by  the 
prcetors  had  become  the  common  law  of  the  mighty  Roman 
Empire.  It  may  be  remarked,  as  a  matter  of  detail,  that 
one  of  the  shrewdest  moves  by  which  the  English  judges 
pushed  their  plan  of  making  a  common  law  was  by  limiting 
the  verdict  of  the  jury  in  every  case  to  questions  of  fact.  At 
first  the  jury  used  to  give  answers  both  on  law  and  fact; 


128  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

and,  being  a  purely  local  body,  they  used,  of  course,  to 
follow  local  custom.  For  example,  they  would  be  asked  : 
"Who  is  the  heir  of  A?";  and  if  they  came  from  a  district 
in  which  the  youngest  son  succeeded  to  his  father,  they 
would  say,  "X"  (A's  youngest  son).  But  later,  the  judges 
used  to  ask  them,  "Who  is  A's  eldest  son?";  which  is 
purely  a  question  of  fact.  And  then  the  judges  used  to 
declare  that  the  eldest  son  was  the  heir.  Thus,  incidentally, 
we  get  the  famous  division  between  the  province  of  the 
judge  and  the  province  of  the  jury. 

3.  Fictions.  —  But  these  two  methods,  valuable  as  they 
were  in  gradually  preparing  the  public  mind  for  the  business 
of  laiv-making,  were  slow  and  imperfect  processes.  So 
also  was  another  very  useful  makeshift ;  viz.,  the  use  of 
ficHons.  If,  for  example,  a  rule  of  custom  said  that  land 
could  not  be  sold,  and  A  wished  to  sell  his  land  to  B,  B 
used  to  bring  a  lawsuit  against  A,  pretending  that  the  land 
was  really  his  (B's),  and  that  A  was  keeping  him  out  of  it. 
Acting  in  collusion,  A  would  make  no  defence  ;  and  the 
Court  would  therefore  adjudge  that  the  land  belonged  to  B. 
The  fiction  there  was  that  there  had  been  no  sale,  but  a 
correction  of  a  former  mistake.  Of  course,  that  is  a  glaring 
fiction ;  and  it  could  never  succeed  but  for  the  willingness 
of  the  Courts  to  connive  at  a  change.  But  it  is  a  well- 
known  fact  that  people  will  accept  a  change  under  cover  of 
a  fiction,  which  they  would  spend  the  last  drop  of  their 
blood  in  resisting  as  an  avowed  alteration.  Turkey  will 
not  give  up  her  sovereignty  over  Crete  ;  but,  if  the  Turkish 
flag  may  fly  in  Crete  as  a  symbol  of  Turkish  sovereignty, 
Turkey  will  withdraw  all  real  control. 

4.  Legislation.  —  But,  where  progress  and  development 
are  rapid,  new  custom  is,  in  fact,  being  rapidly  made  every 
day,  and  all  these  makeshifts  are  inadequate  to  the  task  of 
declaring  it.  Some  more  direct  and  speedy  method  must 
be  adopted.  The  answer  to  the  difficulty  is  found  in 
political  representation. 


THE   STATE   AND   LEGISLATION  129 

To  modem  politicians,  political  representation  is  a  form 
of  agency,  a  means  by  which  people  express  their  wishes, 
and  elect  people  to  carry  them  out.  About  the  precise 
character  of  the  process  there  are,  no  doubt,  great  differ- 
ences of  opinion.  One  school  of  politics  holds,  for  example, 
that  the  representatives  are  mere  delegates  of  the  electors, 
morally,  if  not  legally  bound  to  obey  their  mandate.  An- 
other school  takes  the  view  that  the  elector,  in  choosing  his 
representative,  puts  himself  entirely  in  the  latter's  hands, 
and  leaves  him  to  act  as  he  thinks  best.  Both  agree,  how- 
ever, in  regarding  an  election  as  an  opportunity  for  the 
elector  to  express  his  choice  of  a  representative. 

But  any  one  who  is  at  all  familiar  with  primitive  society 
is  aware  that  the  idea  of  agency  was  quite  unknown  to  that 
stage  of  history.  In  primitive  society  every  transaction  was 
apt  to  end  in  a  fight ;  and  it  was  important,  therefore,  we 
might  even  say  necessary,  that  it  should  be  conducted  by 
the  parties  actually  concerned.  We  must  look  elsewhere 
for  the  beginning  of  political  representation. 

Let  us  take  a  totally  different  line.  Primitive  society 
knew  nothing  ol  agency ;  but  it  knew  a  great  deal  oi  joint 
liability.  A  murdered  B  ;  not  only  A,  but  A's  relatives 
were  liable  to  the  relatives  of  B.  A  (a  mason)  built  B's 
house  so  badly  that  it  fell  down  ;  not  only  A,  but  A's  gild 
was  liable  to  B.  A  (a  merchant)  incurred  a  debt  to  B. 
Not  only  A,  but  (as  we  have  seen)  A's  town,  was  liablg 
to  B. 

The  State  uses  the  idea. —When  the  State  was 
established,  it  made  abundant  use  of  this  idea.  A  man  was 
found  dead  on  the  king's  highway;  the  three  neighbouring 
villages  had  to  produce  the  murderer,  or  pay  the  murder- 
fine.  There  had  been  a  cattle  raid  ;  and  the  tracks  of  the 
stolen  beasts  led  to  a  certain  village.  That  village  must 
have  produced  the  thief  or  paid  the  fine.  There  had  been  a 
row  in  a  market-place,  and  the  king's  flag  had  been  torn 
down,  or  his    bailiff    insulted.      The  town  had  to  make 


130  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

amends.  Or  the  king  had  levied  a  tax  ;  and  the  hundred 
or  the  town  had  been  assessed  at  so  much.  It  had  to 
pay. 

Enf opcement  of  joint  liability.— But  what  if  it  could 
not  or  would  not  pay  ?  According  to  our  modern  ideas,  the 
liability  ought  to  have  been  divided  proportionately  or 
equally  amongst  the  individual  members  of  the  village,  or 
town,  or  hundred  ;  and  each  man  ought  to  have  been  com- 
pelled to  pay  his  own  share.  But  this  course  would  have 
involved  endless  trouble  ;  and  the  king  had  other  things  to 
do.  He  knew  a  simpler  and  more  effectual  way.  He  sent 
his  officer,  who  seized  a  couple  of  the  wealthiest  and  most 
respected  inhabitants  of  the  village,  or  hundred,  or  town, 
and  clapped  them  in  gaol  till  the  money  was  paid.  The 
village,  no  doubt,  protested.  Very  well,  let  it  find  the 
money,  and  the  men  would  be  restored.  Brutal,  perhaps, 
but  effective.  It  is  done  every  day  in  Oriental  countries. 
The  result  is  that  the  captives  are  ransomed  by  their  rela- 
tions and  friends,  who,  by  some  means  or  another,  have 
managed  to  scrape  together  the  money.  Incidentally,  we 
may  notice  that  this  matter  of  raising  the  money  does  a 
great  deal  towards  building  up  what  we  may  call  local  self - 
government,  in  the  district  affected.  But  here  our  chief 
object  is  to  notice  its  importance  as  a  step  in  the  growth  of 
political  representation. 

Development  of  the  idea. — For  we  may  be  very  sure 
that  a  practice  so  convenient  to  the  State  grew  and  spread. 
The  State  was  always  wanting  money  from  its  subjects  on 
some  pretext  or  another.  And  so  we  are  not  at  all  sur- 
prised to  find  that,  quite  early  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  all 
over  Europe,  the  village  headman  and  elders  got  into  the 
habit  of  assembling  at  the  hundred-moot  and  the  county- 
moot  at  fixed  times  in  the  year,  to  meet  the  royal  officers, 
the  sheriff  or  his  "junior,"  and  to  answer  the  royal 
demands.  Later  on,  as  towns  appeared,  we  find  their  head- 
men and  elders  doing  the  like.      No  doubt  on  these  occa- 


THE   STATE    AND    LEGISLATION  131 

sions  a  good  deal  of  purely  local  business  was  discussed  ; 
but  we  may  be  very  sure  that  the  real  thing  which  kept 
the  practice  alive  was  the  presence  of  the  royal  officers. 
Over  and  over  again  we  find  the  royal  command  issued : 
"Let  the  shire-moot  and  the  hundred-moot  be  held  as  it 
was  aforetime,  and  let  the  reeve  and  four  men  come," 
and  so  on. 

Appearance  of  Papliament. — Then,  somewhere  about 
the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  a  great  idea  was  born  in 
western  Europe.  Commerce  was  progressing  rapidly  ;  the 
value  of  money  was  falling.  In  every  country  the  State 
was  wanting  more  money.  Why  not  have  a  great  national 
moot,  as  well  as  many  little  hundred-moots  and  shire-moots  ? 
And  so,  all  over  Europe,  in  Spain,  Sicily,  France,  Ger- 
many, Scandinavia,  England,  Scotland,  even  Ireland,  Parlia' 
tnents  sprang  up.  But  they  were  not  entirely  representative, 
still  less  were  they  homogeneous. 

The  Nobles. — For,  if  we  turn  our  thoughts  back  to  the 
earHest  days  of  the  State  (Chapter  IX),  we  shall  remem- 
ber that  its  first  organization  contained  a  council  of  king's 
followers,  originally  the  comrades  who  had  followed  him 
in  his  conquest  of  the  kingdom.  This  council  had  never 
died  out,  but  had,  on  the  contrary,  been  enlarged  by  the 
gradual  creation  of  nobles,  and  by  the  admission  of  the 
great  ecclesiastics,  the  bishops  and  abbots.  In  fact,  so 
large  had  it  become  that,  for  ordinary  purposes,  it  was 
too  bulky,  and  the  daily  work  of  the  State  was  done  by  a 
smaller  body  of  officials,  generally  known  as  the  Curia  or 
Court,  which  was  always  about  the  person  of  the  king. 
But,  on  solemn  occasions,  the  Great  Council  of  nobles  was 
always  summoned,  though  probably  the  humbler  members 
did  not  often  attend.  So  when  the  kings  determined  to 
hold  national  fnoots,  they  naturally  summoned  the  members 
of  their  Great  Councils. 

The  Clergy.  —  In  the  meantime,  a  new  and  very 
important    class    of    persons     had    grown    up ;    viz.,    the 


132  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

cathedral  and  parochial  clergy.  They  had  amassed  great 
wealth  by  the  gifts  of  the  pious  ;  it  was  calculated  that 
something  like  one-fifth  of  the  land  of  Christendom  was  in 
the  hands  of  the  Church.  Just  at  the  time  of  which  we  are 
speaking  (twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries)  the  Church  had 
developed  a  policy  of  isolation.  Under  the  guidance  of  a 
succession  of  able  Popes,  her  clergy  were  withdrawing 
themselves  from  secular  affairs  and  becoming  a  caste  apart. 
They  cut  themselves  of?  from  domestic  life  by  adopting  the 
rule  of  celibacy;  they  refused  to  plead  in  the  secular  courts  ; 
above  all,  they  declined  to  pay  taxes  to  the  State,  on  the 
ground  that  they  paid  them  to  the  Pope.  Now,  as  the 
main  object  of  the  kings  in  holding  these  national  moots  was 
to  get  money,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  they  could  not  afford 
to  let  the  Church  escape.  So  they  insisted  on  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  clergy  —  the  deans,  archdeacons  and 
proctors,  coming  to  Parliament.  The  clergy  did  not  like  it ; 
but  in  most  cases  they  had  to  come. 

The  smaller  landowners.— Then  the  smaller  land- 
owners were  represented.  In  England  this  was  done  fairly 
enough  in  one  way,  but  not  in  another.  The  sherifT  was 
told  to  send  two  people  from  the  county  court ;  but,  instead 
of  sending  villagers,  he  was  told  to  send  knights,  i.  e., 
landlords.  No  doubt  the  villagers  were  pleased  at  the 
time ;  but  it  was  a  bad  thing  for  them  in  the  long  run.  In 
other  countries  the  villagers  were  often  represented  by 
men  of  their  own  class. 

The  townsmen.  —  Finally,  the  sheriflf  was  told  to  send 
people  from  the  towns,  burgesses  or  burghers,  as  they  were 
called  in  England  ;  and  thus  the  medieval  Parliament  was 
complete.  It  represented  the  estates  of  the  realm;  viz., 
nobles,  clergy,  yeomen  or  peasants,  and  craftsmen. 

But  two  things  about  it  are  well  worth  noticing. 

(a)  It  was  not,  in  any  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  a 
popular  institution.  On  the  other  hand,  for  many  years 
after  its  appearance,  it  was  intensely  unpopular,  both  with 


THE   STATE   AND   LEGISLATION  133 

"constituencies"  and  representatives.  The  counties  hated 
it,  because  they  had  to  pay  the  wages  of  their  members. 
The  clergy  hated  it,  because  they  did  not  want  to  acknowl- 
edge the  secular  authority.  The  boroughs  hated  it,  because 
(in  England  at  least)  the  parliamentary  boroughs  paid  a 
higher  scale  of  taxation  than  their  humbler  sisters.  And  all 
hated  it,  because  a  Parliament  im'ariably  meant  taxation. 
The  members  themselves  disliked  the  odium  of  consenting 
to  taxes  which  their  constituents  would  have  to  pay.  Only 
by  the  most  stringent  pressure  of  the  Crown  were  Parlia- 
ments maintained  during  the  first  century  of  their  existence  ; 
and  the  best  proof  of  this  assertion  lies  in  the  fact  that,  in 
those  countries  in  which  the  Crown  was  weak.  Parliament 
ultimately  ceased  to  assemble.  The  notion  that  Parliaments 
were  the  result  of  a  spontaneous  democratic  movement 
can  be  held  by  no  one  who  has  studied,  ever  so  slightly,  the 
facts  of  history. 

[b)  Parliament,  at  any  rate  the  representative  part  of  it, 
was,  in  its  origin,  concerned  solely  with  the  granting  of 
money.  The  nobles  were,  it  is  true,  hereditary  councillors 
of  the  Crown  ;  but  the  clerical  proctors,  and  the  memben 
for  the  counties  and  boroughs,  could  claim  no  such  position. 
There  was  no  pretence  of  such  a  thing  in  the  early  days  of 
Parliament.  It  was  liability,  and  not  privilege,  which  was 
the  basis  of  Parliamentary  representation  ;  it  was  the  old 
idea  of  the  seizure  of  the  village  elders,  carried  out  on  a 
magnificent  scale. 

New  ehapaetep  of  Papliament.  —  But  it  not  unfre- 
quently  happens  that  an  institution  created  for  one  purpose 
is  found  to  serve  quite  another.  If  the  representatives  of 
shires  and  boroughs  might  not  advise,  at  any  rate  they 
might  petition.  And  petitions  come  with  a  strong  force 
from  people  who  are  being  asked  to  grant  sums  of  money. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  members,  especially  the  mem- 
bers for  the  shires  and  boroughs,  petitioned  loudly  and 
frequently ;   and  sessions  of    Parliament  very  soon  began 


134  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

to  assume  the  character  of  bargainings,  in  which  the 
king  undertook  to  grant  petitions  in  return  for  gifts  of 
money. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do,  it  may  be  asked,  with  legis- 
lation f    Just  everything,  as  we  shall  now  see. 

CharacteP  of  petitions. — For  if  any  group  of  petitions 
presented  by  a  Parliament  be  examined  (in  most  cases  they 
have  been  carefully  recorded)  we  shall  find  that  they  fall 
readily  into  two  divisions.  One  division  consists  of  mere 
private  requests,  e.  g.,  that  a  particular  man  may  have  a 
pension,  that  a  particular  oppression  by  a  royal  official  may 
be  abolished,  and  so  on.  These,  if  granted,  only  involve  an 
executive  or  administrative  act  on  the  part  of  the  Crown. 
But  the  other  division  consists  of  complaints  of  the  breach  of 
good  and  ancient  customs,  and  a  request  for  their  confirma- 
tion. These,  if  granted,  result  in  declarations,  or,  we  may 
say  if  we  like,  makings  of  law,  i.  e.,  in.  legislation.  It  was 
already  admitted  that  the  Crown  had  ordaining  power.  The 
king,  as  military  commander,  could  issue  any  orders  which 
could  fairly  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  performance  of  his 
universally  recognized  duties;  viz.,  the  defence  of  the 
country  against  foreign  attack,  and  the  maintenance  of  order 
within.  He  could  order  the  ports  to  be  closed,  forbid  the 
export  of  precious  metals,  direct  the  town  watches  to  be 
kept  and  the  militia  to  be  maintained,  and  so  on.  He  could, 
moreover,  make  all  regulations  for  the  control  of  his  own 
officials,  and  for  the  conduct  of  proceedings  in  his  own 
tribunals.  All  this  was  inherent  in  his  prerogative;  and,  in 
a  sense,  it  may  be  deemed  legislation.  But  not  until  the 
royal  enactment  was  combined  with  the  popular  petition  was 
thei^e  real  effective  legislation,  law-declaring  which  aflfected 
every  hole  and  corner  of  a  man's  life,  which  turned  the 
vague  and  badly-enforced  custom  into  definite  and  strictly 
enforced  law.  And  this,  even  at  the  present  day,  will  be 
found  to  be  the  character  of  almost  all  successful  legislation. 
It  is  custom  adopted  and  enforced  by  the  State.     A  wise 


THE   STATE   AND    LEGISLATION  135 

legislator  never  attempts  to  devise  legislation  out  of  his  own 
head.  Having  made  up  his  mind  that  a  grievance  requires 
remedying,  he  makes  inquiries,  and  finds  what  the  better 
and  more  enlightened  people  are  spo?iianeousfy  doing  to 
remedy  it.  Then  he  endeavours  to  pass  a  statute  com- 
pelling all  people  to  act  up  to  the  standard  of  the  more 
enlightened  class.  He  does  not  take  the  exalted  type  as  his 
model,  knowing  that  it  is  useless  to  legislate  "over  the 
heads  of  the  people."  But .  he  does  take  the  "rather 
superior  citizen,"  and  he  insists  that  the  inferior  people 
shall  toe  the  line  marked  by  him.  At  once  the  proposal 
receives  support  from  the  people  who  have  already  sponta- 
neously adopted  it.  To  the  inevitable  objection,  that  "it 
cannot  be  done,"  the  answer  is  obvious, —  "but  it  is  already 
done."  And  thus  the  measure  escapes  the  most  damaging 
of  all  criticisms  to  a  statesman,  that  it  is  "unpractical." 
There  is  a  well  known  academic  moot  which  inquires, 
"What  are  the  proper  limits  of  legislative  interference?" 
Somewhere  in  the  direction  indicated  will  be  found  the 
practical  answer  to  the  problem.  For  a  Government,  still 
more  for  a  private  individual,  to  propose  "fancy"  legisla- 
tion, is  to  proceed  upon  the  entirely  unwarranted  assumption 
that  the  Government's  servants,  or  the  private  individual, 
understand  the  business  of  the  nation  better  than  the  nation 
itself  understands  it. 

Majorities.  —  Reverting,  in  conclusion,  to  the  subject  of 
political  representation,  we  may  say  something  about  a 
feature  which  has  everywhere  become  identified  with  it,  and 
without  which  political  representation,  as  understood  at  the 
present  day,  could  not  be  worked ;  viz. ,  the  doctrine  of 
tnajorities.  Strange  as  it  may  sound  to  modern  ears,  it  is 
yet  unquestionably  true  that  there  was  once  a  time  (not  so 
very  long  ago)  when  the  fact  that  a  proposal  was  supported 
by  a  majority  was  considered  no  reason  whatever  for  its 
acceptance. 

Tliis  is  the  more  curious,  inasmuch  as  primitive  society 


136  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

was  full  of  ccnnnmnilics,  i.  e.,  groups  of  people  having 
interests  in  common,  and  conducting  their  business  in  com- 
mon. Surely,  it  will  be  said,  these  communities  must  have 
had  some  method  of  settling  difTerences  of  opinion  by 
votes  ?  No.  The  answer  is,  that  if  custom  did  not  settle 
the  matter,  or  compromise,  then  the  only  remedy  was  a 
fight,  in  which  the  strongest  party  got  its  own  way.  Una- 
nimity, or  a  fight,  were  the  alternatives  of  primitive  times. 
This  is  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why  primitive  society  was 
so  almost  stationary  for  centuries  together. 

Originally  no  competition  for  post  of  represen- 
tative.—  We  cannot  suppose  that,  in  its  origin  as  we  have 
seen  it,  political  representation  found  any  urgent  necessity 
for  contested  elections.  There  would  hardly  be  much  com- 
petition for  the  unpopular  part  of  hostage,  or  even  of 
member  of  an  early  Parliament.  Apparently,  at  first,  the 
royal  officials  laid  hold  of  those  whom  they  considered  to 
be  suitable  persons,  and  packed  them  off  to  Parliament.  In 
the  boroughs,  there  are  some  traces  of  a  rotation  of  service 
among  the  leading  burgesses.* 

But,  as  it  began  gradually  to  dawn  upon  people's  minds 
that,  in  some  countries  at  least,  Parliament  was  a  very 
powerful  institution,  and  membership  thereof  a  thing  to  be 
coveted,  contested  elections  began  to  make  their  appearance. 
In  England,  by  far  the  best  example  of  early  political  repre- 
sentation, there  are  traces  that,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
fifteenth  century  (when  Parliament  was  about  two  hundred 
years  old),  people  were  beginning  to  covet  the  position  of 
member  of  the  Commons  House.  The  old  idea  of  the 
unwilling  hostage  had  died  out.  The  new  idea  of  agency, 
introduced,  perhaps,  from  the  Roman  Law  by  means  of  the 
Church,  was  offering  a  more  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
position  of  the  parliamentary  representative.  He  was  the 
agent  of  his  constituency,  therefore  his  constituents  had  a 


♦This  practice  survived  until  quite  late  in  the  history  of  Spain. 


THE   STATE   AND    LEGISLATION  137 

right  to  choose  him.  But  how  if  they  disagreed  ?  The  ques- 
tion evidently  caused  great  difficulties  ;  and  though,  unhap- 
pily, as  in  so  many  really  interesting  matters  of  history, 
precise  evidence  is  wanting,  we  can  make  a  shrewd  guess  as 
to  what  happened. 

Election  fights.  —  Most  people,  probably,  have  noticed 
that  the  language  of  elections  is  somewhat  bloodthirsty. 
We  speak  of  the  "party  war-chest,"  the  "election  cam- 
paign," the  "enemy's  stronghold,"  "laying  siege  to  a 
constituency,"  "leading  troops  to  victory,"  "carrying  the 
war  into  an  opponent's  territorjr,"  and  so  on.  Much  of  this 
is  no  doubt,  the  decorative  language  of  the  New  Jour- 
nalism ;  but  it  is  interesting  to  find  that  the  further  back  we 
go  in  history,  the  more  nearly  does  it  tally  with  the  actual 
facts.  It  is  one  of  the  numerous  examples  of  the  survival, 
in  language,  of  practices  which  have  passed  away  in  reality. 
Most  things  in  the  Middle  Ages  ended  in  a  fight.  The  con- 
tested election  was  no  exception.  The  victorious  party 
routed  its  opponents,  drove  them  from  the  hustings,  and 
carried  their  man,  i.  e.,  to  the  sheriff,  who  forthwith 
recorded  his  name,  and  sent  it  up  to  the  Clerk  of  the 
Crown. 

Fictions.  —  But  fighting,  though  it  has  its  charms,  has 
also  its  drawbacks,  especially  when  a  royal  official  is  stand- 
ing by,  who  may  inflict  fines  for  breach  of  the  peace.  And 
so  it  would  appear  that  a  fiction  was  gradually  adopted,  by 
which  it  was  assumed  that  there  had  been  a  fight,  and  that 
one  party  had  gained  the  victory. 

But  which  party  ?  Well,  other  things  being  equal,  in  any 
fight  the  more  numerous  party  will  win.  And  so  it  seems 
to  have  gradually  become  the  custom,  where  party  feeling 
was  not  very  strong,  to  settle  the  matter  by  coujiting  heads 
instead  of  breaking  them.  Much  of  the  machinery  of  voting 
recalls  its  origin.  The  first  test  is  a  shout.  If  one  party 
greatly  preponderates,  its  shouts  will  drown  the  other's,  and 
there  will  be  no  need  to  go  further.    But  the  shout  is  the 


138  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

old  battle-cry.  If  there  is  still  doubt,  the  next  step  is  Divide^ 
i.  e.,  draw  up  in  battle  array.  We  do  not  allow  this  in  par- 
liamentary elections,  because  the  temptation  to  resort  to  the 
ancient  method  would  be  too  great.  But,  in  calmer  assem- 
blies, it  is  the  regular  procedure. 

Parties.  —  Thus  we  see  what  a  rough  test  the  verdict  of 
the  majority  is.  It  is  not  based,  historically,  on  any  ethical 
considerations.  It  makes  no  allowance  for  difference  of 
merit  in  the  combatants,  or  for  generalship,  both  of  which 
tell  in  real  warfare.  But  it  is  a  very  simple  and  enormously 
useful  practical  way  of  settling  disputes,  and  it  has  had  a 
world-wide  success.  Curiously  enough,  it  has  often  been 
reckoned  the  child  of  its  own  offspring.  It  is  usually  said 
that  it  is  the  logical  result  of  the  equality  of  Man.  Histori- 
cally speaking,  the  dogma  of  the  equality  of  Man  is  the 
result  of  the  adoption  of  the  purely  practical  machinery  of 
the  majority.  But  the  adoption  of  the  majority  principle  is 
also  responsible  for  another  famous  institution  of  modern 
politics  —  \h^  party  system.  'Y'^^  party  system  is  an  elabo- 
rate piece  of  machinery,  designed  to  secure  that  whenever 
an  opportunity  for  a  vote  occurs  there  shall  always  be  two 
opposing  forces,  at  least,  in  existence  to  contest  it.  Its 
chief  advantages  are  that  it  makes  representative  institu- 
tions something  of  a  reality,  by  interesting  a  large  number 
of  people  in  politics,  that  it  provides  an  effective  criticism  of 
the  existing  government,  that  it  affords  a  scope  for  the 
energies  and  an  outlet  for  the  ambition  of  a  large  number 
of  wealthy  and  educated  men,  and  that  it  guarantees  a  cer- 
tain consistency  in  policy. 

These  three  institutions  — political  repi-esentation,  verdict 
of  the  majority,  and  the  party  system  —  are  the  mainsprings 
of  modern  political  machinery.  They  can  be  and  are  equally 
applied  to  central  and  to  local  government;  and,  by  their 
adaptability  to  all  kinds  of  purposes,  they  are  rapidly 
becoming  looked  upon  as  ends  in  themselves,  rather  than  as 
machinery  for  the  achievement  of  ends.     It  is  hardly  neces- 


THE   STATE   AND   LEGISLATION  139 

sary  to  point  out  that  the  best  machine  in  the  world  will 
not  produce  good  results  unless  good  material  is  put  into 
it ;  and  this  historical  account  of  the  appearance  of  modem 
political  institutions  may  possibly  be  of  service  in  placing 
them  in  their  true  perspective. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
The  State  and  Administration 

Difficulty  of  ttie  subject.  —  We  come  now  to  the  last, 
and  by  far  the  most  difficult  department  of  State  activity. 
For  whilst,  in  other  departments,  such  as  the  dispensing  of 
Justice  and  the  making  and  enforcing  of  Law^  the  victory  of 
the  State  has  been  complete,  and,  with  rare  exceptions,  has 
become  popular,  this  is  by  no  means  the  case  with  regard  to 
that  wide  department  which  we  call  administralion.  Very 
few  persons  now  seriously  argue  that  private  law  courts  or 
private  legislative  bodies  would  be  advantageous.  But  very 
many  people  do  most  strenuously  argue  that  State  interfer- 
ence with  the  management  of  domestic,  religious  and  indus- 
trial affairs  is  thoroughly  mischievous,  and  ought  to  be 
reduced  to  a  minimum.  In  order,  therefore,  to  avoid  all 
appearance  of  dogmatism,  this  chapter  will  be  confined, 
almost  entirely,  to  a  very  brief  sketch  of  the  process  by 
which  the  State  has  actually  acquired  its  present  adnain- 
istrative  position. 

Original  eharaetep  of  the  State. —Once  more  we 
must  call  to  mind  the  initial  fact  that  the  State  was,  in  its 
origin,  a  milita?y  organization.  For  many  years  after  its 
establishment  it  consisted  of  a  comparatively  small  body  of 
warriors  and  officials,  under  the  headship  of  a  king,  con- 
trolling by  force  a  much  larger  mass  of  people  who  inhab- 
ited a  definite  territory.  It  was  only  by  slow  degrees,  and 
as  the  result  of  various  agencies,  that  the  State  incorporated 
into  itself,   mainly,   as  we    have  seen,   by  the    process  of 

(140) 


\ 


THE   STATE   AND   ADMINISTRATION  141 

political  representation,  the  people  whom  at  one  time  it 
merely  governed.  For  no  one  can  be  properly  said  to  be  a 
member  of  the  State  unless  he  has  some  voice  in  the  direc- 
tion of  its  policy. 

Also,  as  we  have  seen,  the  State  started  upon  its  career 
with  the  primary  function  of  maintaining  external  peace  and 
internal  order.  Quite  naturally,  its  first  efforts  in  the  direc- 
tion of  adniinistration  were  intimately  connected  with  this 
function.  It  had  no  decent  pretence  for  interfering  in  the 
lives  of  its  subjects,  except  with  the  object  of  performing  it. 

Means  of  communication.— To  this  fact  we  may 
undoubtedly  attribute  the  early  activity  of  the  State  in  de- 
veloping the  means  of  communication.  The  "king's  high- 
way" is  now  regarded  mainly  as  a  convenience  for  public 
traffic  ;  but,  historically,  it  was  laid  down  and  maintained  for 
the  convenience  of  the  royal  armies.  In  the  days  in  which 
commercial  intercourse  between  one  part  of  the  kingdom  and 
another  was  almost  non-existent,  the  costly  convenience  of 
great  trunk  roads  would  certainly  never  have  been  undertaken 
as  a  commercial  speculation.  But  roads  were  simply  in- 
valuable to  a  king  who  wished  to  move  his  army  about ;  and 
they  were  always  carefully  maintained  and  protected  by 
well-governed  States.  A  similar  care  was  bestowed  upon 
the  great  bridges,  which  are,  of  course,  merely  highways 
across  rivers.  It  is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  reality 
of  local  government  in  England,  that  the  care  of  the  main 
roads  and  bridges  is  entrusted  to  local  authorities.  In  almost 
all  other  countries  the  State  jealously  maintains  its  immedi- 
ate control. 

Posts. — The  same  ideas  have  been  at  work,  though  with 
a  modified  force,  in  the  later  developments  of  communication. 
The  earliests  posts  were  royal  messengers  ;  and  although  in 
England  railways  *  are  not  administered  by  the  State,  they 


*Is  not  this  largely  because  England  is  a  naval  rather  than  a  military 
power? 


142  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

frequently  are  so  administered  on  the  Continent ;  and  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  motives  of  military  efficiency  largely 
influence  their  administration.  Finally,  it  may  be  observed 
that  land  and  ocean  telegraphic  connection  is,  in  the  majority 
of  cases,  intimately  connected  with  State  control. 

Police. —  On  its  internal  side,  the  State's  original  function 
of  maintaining  order  very  early  gave  rise  to  a  great  develop- 
ment of  what  is  generally  known  as  police  administration. 
Looked  at  from  one  point  of  view,  this  may  be  considered  as 
a  branch  of  the  dispensation  of  Justice,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  ultimately  became  the  exclusive  function  of  the  State. 
But,  on  its  preventive  side,  police  jurisdiction  has  a  special 
character  of  its  own,  which  distinguishes  it  from  ordinary 
judicial  work.  In  the  curfew*  of  William  the  Conqueror,  in 
the  enforcement  of  the  watch,  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
tithings  or  peace-associations,  the  State,  in  England  at  least, 
showed  very  early  that  it  realized  the  importance  of  prevent- 
ing as  well  as  punishing  disorder.  The  State  regulation  of 
markets  and  fairs,  the  many  galling  restrictions  on  the  har- 
bouring of  strangers,  and  the  stringent  regulations  on  the 
subject  of  inns,  were  amongst  the  earliest  developments  of 
State  police  administration.  On  the  Continent,  as  is  well 
known,  this  preventive  policy  expanded  to  an  enormous 
extent,  and  was  made  the  excuse  for  all  kinds  of  wanton 
State  interference.  In  England  it  was  wisely  left,  to  a  great 
extent,  to  local  authorities;  the  work  of  the  central  govern- 
ment being  mainly  of  a  controlling  or  supervising  character. 

Revenue. —  Ne.xt  to  the  maintenance  of  safety  and  order, 
the  State  in  early  days  was,  as  we  have  seen,  mainly  con- 
cerned with  questions  of  revenue.  To  its  desire  to  foster  and 
develop  this  important  interest  we  must  undoubtedly 
attribute  many  activities  of  the  early  State,  which,  superficially 
examined,   look  like  vague  attempts  at    philanthropy,   or 


♦The  pious  theory  of  our  school  histories,  that  King  William  laid 
down  his  curfew  rule  to  prevent  his  subjects  incurring  the  risk  of  fires, 
must  be  taken  with  a  genial  cynicism. 


THE    STATE    AND    ADMINISTRATION  143 

' '  State-socialism ' '  in  the  modern  sense.  To  this  desire,  for 
example,  we  may  attribute  many  early  ordinances  on  the 
subject  of  weights  and  tneasures,  prices,  qualities,  and  es- 
pecially coinage.  When  the  income  of  the  State  was  paid  in 
kind,  it  was  extremely  important  that  a  standard  of  measure 
and  value  should  be  generally  accepted.  The  royal  officials 
found  themselves  hampered  at  every  turn  by  the  numberless 
petty  local  and  customary  differences  on  these  subjects. 
And  so,  to  render  its  accounts  easier,  the  State  insisted  upon 
certain  standards  being  adopted,  and  punished  any  attempt 
to  revert  to  the  old  customary  methods.  When  the  revenue 
of  the  State  came  to  be  paid  in  coin,  the  necessity  for  unifor- 
mity was  still  more  obvious.  And  so  the  State,  not  without 
some  severe  struggles,  managed  to  acquire  a  nio7iopoly  of 
coinage.  The  great  convenience  to  the  public  of  the  State's 
action  in  these  matters  is  now  universally  recognized  ;  but  it 
was  not  the  original  motive  of  the  State's  policy. 

Jealousy. — A  third  and  very  powerful  motive  for  the 
active  interference  of  the  State  in  administrative  matters  was, 
undoubtedly,  that  jealotcsy  of  rivals  which  affects  institutions 
no  less  than  individuals.  The  State  is,  no  doubt,  an  institu- 
tion, but  it  is  an  institution  composed  of  or  at  least  worked 
by  human  beings.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  absurd  in 
attributing  to  it  human  passions.  We  have  already  seen,  in 
dealing  with  the  development  of  property  (Chapter  X),  how 
the  action  of  the  State  led  to  the  dissolution  of  the  village 
community  on  its  proprietary  side.  On  its  personal  side,  as 
a  group  of  dependents  upon  a  lord,  the  State  was  powerfully 
helped  by  a  great  catastrophe  which  fell  upon  Europe  in  the 
fourteenth  century.  This  was  the  Plague,  or  Black  Death, 
as  it  is  often  called,  which  is  calculated,  in  England  alone,  to 
have  swept  away  from  one-half  to  one-third  of  the  popula- 
tion. The  blow  fell  heaviest  upon  the  labouring  classes,  and 
was  followed  immediately  by  a  great  scarcity  of  labotir. 
This  scarcity  made  itself  felt  principally  in  the  agricultural 
districts,  because  the  surviving  agricultural  labourers  rushed 


144  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

to  fill  the  places  of  the  dead  craftsmen  in  the  towns.  So 
great  was  the  despair  of  the  land-owners  that  they  appealed 
to  the  State  for  aid  ;  and  the  State,  not  unwilling  to  inter- 
vene, issued  stringent  regulations,  compelling  all  people  of 
the  labouring  classes  to  work  on  the  old  terms.  From  that 
time  the  State  has  always  been  obliged  to  regard  the  regula- 
tion of  labour  as  part  of  its  functions.  The  immediate  effect 
of  the  step  was,  virtually,  to  dissolve  the  old  labour  bond  of 
serfdom,  and  substitute  for  it  the  regulation  of  labour  by  the 
State's  officials.  It  is  true  that  these  latter  were,  in  many 
cases,  the  old  feudal  lords  in  a  new  guise  ;  and  so  serfdom 
was,  in  fact,  a  long  time  in  dying  out.  And,  of  course,  the 
interference  of  the  State  could  not  really  afTect  the  economic 
position  of  the  labourer  ;  that  was,  and  is,  always  fixed  by 
economic  causes.     But  it  altered  his  legal  position. 

The  gild. — Precisely  the  same  policy  was  adopted,  some- 
what later,  with  regard  to  urban  labour.  No  doubt  the 
gilds  also  suffered  severely  by  the  Black  Death.  But  they 
had  more  vitality  than  the  villages,  and  it  seems  to  have 
been  the  great  geographical  discoveries  of  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries  which  dealt  them  their  death  blow.  In 
the  wake  of  the  great  discoveries  came  great  commercial 
ventures,  quite  beyond  the  power  of  the  old  gilds  to  manage. 
There  sprang  up  a  new  class  of  merchants,  who  despised  the 
petty  restrictions  and  ambitions  of  the  gild-system,  so  far  as 
they  hampered  their  own  plans,  though  they  were  quite 
willing  to  accept  similar  privileges  themselves  for  the  new 
trading  cmnpanies  which  they  formed.  Then,  too,  the  old 
gilds  were,  as  we  have  seen,  a  good  deal  mixed  up  with 
Roman  Catholicism  ;  and  this  fact,  in  Protestant  countries, 
went  greatly  against  them.  Ultimately,  the  old  gilds  were 
dissolved  by  the  State,  which  then  found  itself  compelled  to 
lay  down  certain  rules  for  the  control  of  artisan  labour,  and 
to  enforce  them  by  its  own  officials.  In  both  cases  we  see 
the  invariable  policy  of  the  State — to  break  down  all  inter- 
mediate authorities,  and  to  deal  directly  with  the  individual. 


THE    STATE   AND    ADMINISTRATION  145 

One  of  the  most  striking  examples  of  this  policy  has  been, 
of  course,  the  dissolution  of  the  East  India  Company,  which, 
so  long  as  its  trade  monopoly  lasted,  was  simply  a  gigantic 
mercantile  gild.  The  same  policy  was  manifest  in  the  de- 
termined hostility  displayed  by  the  State  towards  the  modern 
labour  associations,  known  as  Trade  Unions,  which  date 
from  about  the  end  of  the  last  century'.  And,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  strong  reaction  against  State  interference,  brought 
about,  not  only  in  England  but  on  the  Continent,  mainly  by 
Adam  Smith's  "Wealth  of  Nations,"  it  is  not  unHkely  that 
the  policy  would  have  been  once  more  carried  out.  As  it  is, 
the  State  is  now  very  much  inclined  to  wash  its  hands  of  a 
difficult  problem  by  proclaiming  its  neutrality  in  industrial 
matters.  But,  unfortunately  for  itself,  it  has  raised  a  spectre 
by  its  destruction  of  the  old  labour  organizations  ;  and  it 
must  face  the  consequences  of  its  policy. 

The  Poop  Law. — Incidentally,  also,  its  action  sowed 
the  seed  ot  the  great  problem  of  pauperism,  or  State  relief 
of  the  indigent.  The  State,  of  course,  did  not  create 
poverty ;  but,  by  its  destruction  of  the  chief  agencies,  the 
village  system,  the  monasteries,  and  the  gilds  which  dealt 
with  it,  the  State  practically  assumed  responsibility  for  its 
treatment.  It  is  a  responsibility  which,  by  reason  of  its  far- 
reaching  consequences,  the  State  has  always  been  reluctant 
to  undertake.  In  nearly  all  cases  the  actual  administration 
of  the  Poor  Law,  where  it  exists  at  all,  is  placed  by  it  in  the 
hands  of  local  authorities,  the  action  of  the  central  govern- 
ment being  confined  to  supervision  and  criticism.  This  is, 
unquestionably,  the  wisest  policy  on  many  grounds  ;  for  Poor 
Relief  is  just  one  of  those  matters  in  which,  if  corruption  and 
hypocrisy  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  prevail,  minute  local 
knowledge  is  absolutely  essential.  The  dangers  which  are 
attendant  even  on  a  local  system  of  Poor  Relief  were,  how- 
ever, well  illustrated  by  the  appalling  condition  of  affairs 
which  prevailed  in  England  during  the  half  century  which 
ended  with  the  appearance  of  the  Reformed  Parliament  of 


146  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

1832.  The  great  Poor  Law  Report  of  1834  showed  that, 
under  cover  of  the  Poor  Law  system,  a  scheme  of  com- 
viu?tism,  of  the  most  degraded  and  vicious  type,  had  practi- 
cally established  itself  in  the  rural  districts  of  England.  It  is 
very  significant  that,  in  newly-developed  countries,  such  as 
the  colonies  of  the  British  Empire,  the  State  has,  almost 
without  exception,  declined  to  undertake  responsibility  for 
the  relief  of  poverty.  And  this  is  the  more  striking  when 
we  consider  the  political  influence  of  the  poorer  classes  in 
those  countries,  and  their  leanings  towards  "State-social- 
ism." 

Sudden  calamity. — Once  more  it  may  be  pointed  out 
that  the  occurrence  of  any  sudden  and  overwhelming  calamity 
has  always,  at  any  rate  since  the  great  power  of  the  State  has 
been  generally  recognized,  been  followed  by  a  great  increase 
of  administrative  activity.  It  is,  of  course,  perfectly  natural 
that  at  such  a  crisis  men's  minds  should  turn  instinctively 
for  help  to  the  most  powerful  agency  with  which  they  are 
familiar,  regardless  of  ultimate  consequences.  And  the  more 
able  and  efficient  the  government  of  the  State  is,  the  more 
readily  will  its  assistance  be  invoked.  The  story  is  the  same, 
from  the  days  of  the  Plague  of  the  fourteenth  century  to 
those  of  the  cholera  in  the  nineteenth.  A  pestilence,  a 
famine,  a  great  fire,  a  murrain  of  beasts,  a  flood,  a  tempest ; 
paralysis  of  private  effort ;  application  of  State  aid,  followed 
by  permanent  organization  of  State  machinery  to  deal  with 
similar  matters  in  the  future.  One  of  the  best  examples  is, 
of  course,  the  vast  and  complicated  machinery  of  the  Public 
Health  department  in  England,  which  has  rapidly  gjown  up 
as  the  result  of  the  cholera  visitations  in  the  middle  of  the 
present  century. 

New  aspect  of  State  administpation.— It  should, 
however,  be  pointed  out  that  the  question  of  State  adminis- 
tration has  received  an  altogether  new  character  from  the 
great  modem  development  of  political  representation.  When 
the  State  consisted  entirely  of  a  handful  of  officials  and 


THE    STATE    AND    ADMINISTRATION  147 

privileged  landowners,  who  had  sprung  from  official  ranks, 
an  increase  of  its  administrative  activity  really  meant  the 
extension  of  interference  by  this  limited  class  with  the  daily 
lives  of  the  vast  masses  of  men  whom  it  governed.  More- 
over, it  was  an  interference  which,  however  good  its  motives, 
almost  inevitably  suffered  from  want  of  detailed  knowledge 
of  the  circumstances  of  those  whom  it  was  supposed  to 
benefit.  Now  that  the  State  includes  within  its  ranks  a  veiy 
large  proportion  of  the  inhabitants  of  its  territory,  now  that 
the  average  man  can  make  his  voice  effectively  heard  b^ 
means  of  elections  and  newspapers,  the  danger  of  arbitrary 
and  ignorant  interference  by  the  State  is  very  greatly  re- 
duced. It  is,  no  doubt,  a  reflection  of  this  kind  which  has 
rendered  the  increase  of  State  activity  so  popular,  in  com- 
munities in  which  the  average  man  can  make  his  power  felt. 
In  such  communities  it  is,  in  fact,  often  said  that  the  State  is 
merely  the  nation  organized  for  governmental  purposes,  and, 
therefore,  that  its  action  is  harmless.  Although  this  view  is, 
no  doubt,  founded  on  an  important  truth,  it  contains  by  im- 
plication certain  fallacies  which,  as  a  final  word,  it  may  be 
well  to  point  out.  It  would  be  the  worst  kind  of  pedantry 
to  attempt  to  lay  down  any  hard  and  fast  lines  for  the  limits 
of  State  administration.  But  an  honest  recognition  of  the 
dangers  attending  it  will  serve  as  a  useful  guide  to  the  citizen 
in  making  up  his  mind  on  any  particular  proposal. 

Fallacies  in  the  apgument.— In  the  first  place,  even 
in  modem  conditions,  the  State  and  the  nation  never  are 
identical.  Even  where  the  so-called  "universal  suffrage" 
prevails,  the  parliamentary  franchise  is  not  (with  rare  excep- 
tions) exercised  by  women  ;  and  where,  as  in  New  Zealand, 
some  women  have  the  franchise,  there  are  yet  many  inhabi- 
tants of  the  country  who  take  no  direct  part  in  the  business  of 
government.  It  may  be  said,  of  course,  that  in  such  countries 
all  persons  have  the  franchise  who  are  fit  to  use  it  •,  but  tha 
is  to  beg  a  very  large  question.  The  fact  remains  that,  even 
in  the  countries  of  so-called  "universal  suffrage,"  an  exten- 


148  A    SHORT   HISTORY    OF   POLITICS 

sion  of  State  administration  means  an  increased  interference 
by  some  persons  with  other  j^ersons'  freedom  of  action.  In 
countries,  such  as  England  and  Italy,  in  which  the  parlia- 
mentary franchise  is  on  a  more  restricted  basis,  the  same 
truth  applies  with  still  greater  force. 

Again,  even  if  we  are  to  admit  that  State  and  nation  are 
identical,  we  should  still  be  very  far  from  admitting  that 
State  interference,  especially  in  administrative  matters,  is 
necessarily  a  good  thing.  Legislation,  indeed,  especially  if  it 
follows  the  policy  of  adopting  and  enforcing  the  practice  of 
the  most  enlightened  members  of  the  community,  stands  on  a 
somewhat  diflferent  footing.  For  in  ordinary  legislation  the 
citizen  is  merely  given  general  directions,  and  left  to  follow 
them  out  at  his  own  risk  ;  whilst  administrative  activity  not 
only  gives  him  directions,  but  stands  over  him  to  see  that  he 
obeys  them.  In  other  words,  legislation  treats  him  as  a  man, 
administration,  as  a  child.  Yet,  even  in  legislative  matters, 
it  might  be  well  to  allow  the  process  of  improvement  to  work 
by  example,  rather  than  by  precept. 

And,  in  administration,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
constant  supervision  and  guidance  of  the  individual  by  the 
State  tends  to  produce  a  somewhat  feeble  type  of  citizenship, 
which  is  constantly  looking  for  directions,  instead  of  casting 
about  to  help  itself.  This  fact  is  very  observable  in  the 
much-governed  countries  of  continental  Europe ;  but  it  is 
also  noteworthy  in  some  countries  which  should  have  in- 
herited a  healthier  tradition  of  independence,  such  as  the 
Australian  colonies. 

Finally,  the  modem  indiscriminate  advocacy  of  State 
administration  conceals  the  fallacy  that  State  officials  must 
necessarily  prove  more  effective  in  their  action  than  private 
enterprise.  In  some  respects,  no  doubt,  there  is  ground  for 
this  view-.  The  private  individual  naturally  shrinks  from 
rebuking  practices  which  he  knows  to  be  harmful  to  the 
community,  even  when  they  are  contrary  to  express  law.  In 
well  governed  communities,  the  public  official  has,  of  course, 


THE    STATE   AND    ADMINISTRATION  149 

no  such  scruples.  Moreover,  in  its  higher  ranks,  the  body 
of  State  servants  usually  contains  a  majority  of  men  of  genuine 
public  spirit  of  great  ability,  and  of  special  training.  The 
dignity  of  their  position  is  sufficient  to  compensate  them  for 
the  loss  of  that  stimulus  which^  to  human  nature  as  we  know 
it,  is  usually  best  supplied  by  the  hope  of  personal  profit,  to 
be  derived  from  hard  work  and  ability.  But,  in  the  lower 
ranks  of  the  State  service,  the  force  of  these  considerations 
diminishes  rapidly,  especially  if  the  area  of  the  State's  opera- 
tions be  very  large.  The  State  has  to  compete  with  private 
employers  of  labour,  who  can,  perhaps,  afford  to  offer  more 
tempting  rewards.  The  State  has  not  the  same  apparent 
interest  in  detecting  laziness  and  inefficiency  as  the  private 
employer ;  nor  has  it,  as  a  rule,  the  same  facilities.  It  is 
bound  to  move  according  to  established  routine  ;  it  is  often 
tempted  to  stifle  inquiries  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  scandals  ; 
it  is  peculiarly  subject  to  pressure  by  outside  influences.  The 
head  of  an  administrative  department  is  often  obliged  to  allow, 
among  his  subordinates,  conduct  which  he  would  not  for  one 
moment  tolerate  in  the  management  of  his  own  estate  or  his 
own  business.  Add  to  this  the  unpleasant  fact  that  the 
State,  for  various  reasons,  cannot,  in  many  cases,  even 
promise  security  of  tenure  to  its  minor  officials ;  and  it  be- 
comes obvious  that  the  attractions  of  the  State  service  to  a 
really  desirable  class  of  men  are  very  small.  The  result  is 
that  minor  State  officials  are,  in  too  many  cases  (though 
there  are  numerous  honourable  exceptions),  lazy,  stupid,  or 
corrupt,  and,  therefore,  inefficient.  In  other  words,  plans  for 
the  unlimited  extension  of  State  administration  stand  between 
the  horns  of  an  awkard  dilemma.  It  will  not  be  safe  to  carry 
them  out  until  the  progress  of  education  and  morality  has 
produced  an  unlimited  supply  of  men  and  women  who  are 
capable  of  discharging  important  official  duties  with  great 
efficiency  and  absolute  honesty,  for  comparatively  small 
reward.  And,  when  such  a  supply  has  been  created,  the 
extension  of  State  Interference  will  no  longer  be  needed. 


I50  A    SHORT    HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

Once  more  it  must  be  admitted  that  to  dogmatize  upon 
the  proper  limits  of  State  interference  would  be  pedantry  of 
the  worst  type.  But  it  will  probably  also  be  admitted  by 
careful  observers  that  no  proposal  for  its  extension  should 
be  entertained,  except  in  cases  of  urgent  necessity,  in  which 
the  object  to  be  attained  is  of  more  importance  than  the 
method  of  its  attainment,  in  which  uniformity  is  of  greater 
value  than  originality,  and  in  which  it  is  morally  certain 
that  tlie  action  of  the  State  will  be  more  effectual  than 
private  enterprise. 


1 


CHAPTER  XIV 
Varieties  of  Political  Society 

Ancient  classification  of  States.  —  Until  a  few  years 
ago,  it  was  considered  almost  essential  to  begin  every  dis- 
cussion on  Politics  witii  a  mention  of  the  celebrated  theme 
of  Aristotle,  which  classified  States  into  Monarchies,  Aris- 
tocracies, and  Democracies  or  Polities.  One  of  the  surest 
signs  that  our  knowledge  of  the  History  of  Politics  has 
greatly  advanced  within  the  last  few  years  is  the  fact  that 
this  once  famous  classification  has  sunk  into  oblivion.  It  is 
neither  exhaustive  nor,  whatever  it  may  have  been  in 
Aristotle's  day,  is  it  very  important.  Still  more  silent  has 
fallen  the  once  noisy  controversy  as  to  the  respective  merits 
of  these  three  forms  of  government.  Slowly,  but  surely, 
people  are  coming  to  the  wise  conclusion  that  no  form  of 
government  can  be  said  to  be  absolutely  the  best ;  and  that, 
in  each  case,  that  is  the  best  which  is  most  suited  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  case. 

Similarity  of  principle  In  all  States.— As  a  matter 
of  fact,  all  communities  in  the  purely  political  stage  will  be 
found  to  be  varieties  of  a  single  type,  the  type,  namely, 
which  is  distinguished  by  the  possession  of  sovereignty. 
Somewhere  or  another,  in  all  communities  of  this  type,  there 
resides  an  authority  which,  in  the  last  resort,  controls  abso- 
lutely and  beyond  appeal  the  actions  of  every  individual 
member  of  the  community.  No  doubt,  as  has  been  well 
pointed  out,  this  sovereign  power  recognizes  certain  moral 
limitations  of  its  action ;  it  proceeds,  in  fact,  at  the  risk  of 

(151) 


152  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OP    POLITICS 

revolution.  But,  so  far  as  law  is  concerned,  it  acknowl- 
edges no  superior  and  no  limit.  This  condition  of  afifairs 
has,  no  doubt,  its  drawbacks  ;  it  has  also  immense  advan- 
tages. Its  great  practical  convenience  may  be  judged  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  the  type  of  government  in  all  the  Great 
Powers  of  the  modern  world,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
the  United  States  of  America. 

Varieties  of  organization.  — But,  within  these  limits, 
sovereignty  may  be  organized  in  different  ways.  It  may  be 
vested  (in  theory  at  least)  in  the  hands  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual, as,  for  example,  in  Russia.  Or  it  may  be  vested, 
and  this  is  by  far  the  commoner  case,  in  a  number  of  indi- 
viduals or  bodies,  as  in  the  Crown,  Lords  and  Commons,  in 
the  British  Empire.  As  this  latter  arrangement  always 
gives  rise  to  a  good  many  elaborate  rules  concerning  the 
relationship  between  the  different  individuals  or  bodies 
composing  the  sovereign  pozuer,  it  has  received  the  name  of 
constitutional  government,  while  the  sovereignty  vested  in 
a  single  individual  receives  the  name  of  autocratic  govern- 
tnent.  But  we  must  be  careful  to  remember  that,  owing  to 
political  passions,  these  names  have  received  tnoral  as  well 
as  scientific  meanings.  By  autocratic  rule,  many  people 
mean  arbitrary  or  capricious  rule  ;  by  constitutional  gov- 
ernment, they  mean  mild  or  good  government.  Of  course 
the  government  of  a  numerous  body  may  be,  and  often  is, 
just  as  arbitrary  and  capricious  as  the  rule  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual ;  and  vice  versd.  Needless  to  say,  the  proportions 
in  which  sovereign  power  is  divided  among  the  different 
members  of  a  sovereign  body  varies  almost  infinitely  with 
each  case.  And  so  also  do  the  methods  by  which  the 
various  members  are  selected.  Sometimes  the  executive 
and  legislative  powers  are  quite  distinct,  as  in  the  German 
Empire,  and,  virtually,  in  Austria  ;  sometimes  they  are  com- 
bined, as  in  England.  Sometimes  the  law  courts  are 
beyond  the  control  of  the  legislature,  as  in  the  United 
States  of  America ;   sometimes   they  are,  legally  at  least, 


VARIETIES   OF    POLITICAL    SOCIETY  153 

subject  to  its  control,  as,  again,  in  the  British  Empire. 
Again,  the  head  of  the  State  may  be  hereditary  or  elective, 
and  this  independently  of  the  extent  of  his  powers.  The 
German  Emperor,  with  very  great  power,  is  hereditary;  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  also  with  great  power,  is 
elective.  The  King  of  the  Netherlands,  who  has  very 
little  power,  is  hereditary;  the  President  of  the  French 
Republic,  also  with  small  power,  is  elective. 

Another,  and  almost  equally  important,  variation  of  sov- 
ereignties is,  that  some  are  what  we  may  call  ordinary, 
others  extraordinary.  That  is  to  say,  in  some  States  the 
sovereign  authority  is  in  constant  action,  or  at  least  always 
ready  to  act ;  in  others  it  requires  an  elaborate  machinery 
to  set  it  in  motion.  The  British  Empire  is  the  best  modem 
example  of  the  former  class;  there  the  powers  of  the 
ordinary  legislature  are  unlimited.  Such  was  also  the  posi- 
tion of  most  of  the  European  governments  at  the  close  of 
the  last  century.  But  this  kind  of  sovereignty  has  grown 
much  out  of  favour  in  the  last  hundred  years  ;  and  the  ma- 
jority of  the  ordinary  legislatures  of  Europe  do  not  now 
wield  sovereign  powers.  Thus,  for  example,  the  ordinary 
legislatures  of  Spain,  Belgium,  Holland  and  many  of  the 
German  States,  cannot  go  beyond  the  terms  of  written 
documents  which  place  limits  to  their  powers,  and  which 
are  known  as  their  constitutions.  If  any  further  powers  are 
required,  they  must  be  sought  from  some  extraordinary 
authority,  such  as  a  vote  of  the  whole  electors  or  inhab- 
itants. This  fact,  which  is  extremely  important,  gives  rise 
to  the  distinction  between  fundamental  and  ordinary  laws  ; 
the  former  being  those  which  cannot  be  passed  or  altered 
by  the  ordinary  legislature,  the  latter,  those  which  can. 
This  distinction  has  been  aptly  expressed  by  Mr.  James 
Bryce,  as  the  distinction  between  rigid  and  flexible  consti- 
tutions. It  is  closely,  though  not  inevitably,  connected 
with  the  division  of  constitutions  into  written  and  unwritten. 
The  written  constitution  is  nearly  always  rigid;  because  its 


154  A   SHORT   HISTORY    OF    POLITICS 

framers  do  not  really  believe  that  it  ever  will  require  altera- 
tion. The  unwritten  constitution,  which  has  grown  rather 
than  been  made,  is  nearly  always  flexible,  i.  e. ,  it  can  be 
altered  by  the  ordinary  legislature.*  This  is  just  one  of 
those  cases  in  which  the  doctrine,  that  the  circumstances  of 
the  case  must  determine  the  form  of  government,  is  most 
applicable.  It  would  be  an  absurd  piece  of  academic  folly 
for  a  country  like  England,  which  has  flourished  for  centu- 
ries with  an  unwritten  constitution,  to  attempt  to  reduce  her 
constitution  to  writing.  But  the  circumstances  under  which 
most  of  the  existing  constitutions  of  Europe  came  into 
existence  rendered  written  documents  essential.  Oddly 
enough,  however,  England  did  set  the  fashion  of  written 
constitutions,  during  the  Civil  War.  After  the  Restoration, 
England  abandoned  them  ;  but  they  were  taken  up  by  the 
United  States  of  America  when  the  latter  achieved  their 
independence ;  from  America  they  passed  to  France,  and 
from  France,  after  the  French  Revolution,  to  the  rest  of 
Europe,  and,  ultimately,  to  the  European  colonies. 

Value  of  local  government. —The  last  distinction  in 
point  of  form  which  we  need  point  out  is  the  important 
distinction  between  centralized  and  localized  States.  This 
is  a  distinction  which  is  nearly  always  to  be  accounted  for 
by  the  circumtances  of  history;  but  its  practical  importance 
is  none  the  less  on  that  account.  Beginning  with  the  highly 
centralized  States,  we  may  notice  that  they  correspond 
closely  with  those  States  which  have  been  formed  by  the 
gradual  conquest  by  one  ruler  over  a  group  of  surrounding 
rulers,  whose  independence  he  has  desired  to  crush.  Thus, 
modem  France  was  formed  by  the  victory  of  the  kings  at 
Paris  in  a  struggle,  long  and  profound,  with  the  rulers  of  the 
neighbouring  fiefs  —  Burgundy,   Champagne,  Blois,  Acqui- 


*Italy  seems  to  be  the  most'iniportant  exception.  The  constitution 
(Statuto)  is  written,  but  can  be  altered  by  the  ordinary  legislature. 
Austria  and  France  seem  to  been  the  border  line;  but  their  constitu- 
tions are  only  partly  written. 


VARIETIES   OF   POLITICAL    SOCIETY  155 

taine,  Gascony,  Toulouse,  Brittany,  etc. ;  and  France  is  the 
best  example  of  a  highly  centralized  country.  That  is  to 
say,  the  central  government  at  Paris  really  controls  even 
petty  local  affairs  throughout  France,  leaving  practically  no 
independence  to  the  so-called  local  authorities.  Very  much 
the  same  is  the  case  in  Italy,  where  the  State  was  formed  by 
the  gradual  victory  of  the  House  of  Sardinia  over  the 
neighbouring  principalities,  although,  as  the  struggle  was 
very  much  less  severe  in  that  case,  the  centralization  of 
Italy  is,  perhaps,  largely  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  influence 
of  French  models.  On  the  other  hand,  a  State  which  was 
formed  suddenly  by  the  conquest  of  a  foreign  ruler,  or  in 
which  a  long-established  government  has  produced  a  real 
fusion  of  the  population,  there  is  generally  a  considerable 
allowance  of  genuine  local  independence.  That  is  to  say, 
the  local  authorities  are  genuinely  chosen  by  the  people 
whom  they  have  to  govern  ;  they  are  not  bound  at  every 
step  to  seek  instructions  from  the  central  government ;  and, 
so  long  as  they  act  within  their  legal  powers,  they  cannot  be 
interfered  with  by  the  central  authorities.  The  best  kind  of 
all  local  government  is  that  which  is  based  upon  ancient 
popular  divisions,  such  as  England,  where  the  local  units,  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent,  represent  natural  lines  of  race  and 
settlement.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  enlarge  on  the  merits 
of  local  government.  It  stimulates  and  keeps  alive  political 
life  in  a  way  that  central  government  alone  can  never  do  ;  it 
trains  independent  politicians  for  the  service  of  the  State  ;  it 
prevents  the  establishment  of  that  dead  level  of  administra- 
tive uniformity  which  is  the  ideal  of  a  central  bureaucracy  ; 
and  it  relieves  the  central  government  of  an  immense 
amount  of  routine  duty,  which  the  latter  could  not  perform 
satisfactorily.  Its  weak  points  are  equally  apparent.  It  is 
apt  to  be  narrow-minded,  ignorant  and  selfish ;  the  small- 
ness  of  its  interests  may  fail  to  attract  men  of  the  best  type, 
and  so  it  may  become  very  inefficient.  But  these  dangers 
may  be  guarded  against  by  the  criticism  of   the  central 


156  A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF    POLITICS 

government,  a  task  which  the  latter  is  admirably  qualified 
to  perform,  by  reason  of  its  wider  outlook  and  greater 
experience. 

Composite  States.  — Of  late  years,  the  distinction  be- 
tween centi  aliiced  and  localized  States  has  taken  a  still  more 
important  shape,  about  which  something  must  also  be  said. 
The  really  striking  feature  of  the  last  century  of  politics  has 
been  the  establishment  of  federal  States.  The  way  had 
been  prepared  by  Switzerland,  which  has  the  distinguished 
honour  of  being  the  first  country  to  introduce  the  new  type 
of  government  to  the  modern  world.  Switzerland  was 
followed  by  the  United  States  of  America  in  1777,  by  the 
series  of  experiments  which  culminated  in  the  Empire  of 
Germany  in  1870,  and  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in  1867; 
while,  at  the  present  day,  we  are  deeply  interested  in 
watching  the  success  of  another  federal  experiment  in 
Australia. 

Introduces  a  New  Ppineiple. — To  the  historian  of 
Politics,  the  vital  interest  of  the  new  tendency  lies  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  the  introduction  of  a  new  principle  into  the 
organization  of  society,  the  principle  of  agreenietit  or  con- 
tract. No  doubt  there  have  been  other  influetices  at  work  in 
the  formation  of  federations.  The  military  preponderance 
of  Prussia,  for  example,  brought  the  German  Empire  into 
existence;  and  the  Imperial  authority  of  Great  Britain  urged 
the  Canadian  provinces  to  unite.  And  so  the  German 
Empire  and  the  Federal  Dominion  are  hardly  ideal  speci- 
mens of  federation.  But  the  foundation  of  Switzerland,  and 
the  United  States  of  America,  were,  and  (if  it  takes  place) 
the  union  of  the  Australian  colonies  will  be,  purely  volun- 
tary. Lawyers  know  that  the  contract  is  a  somewhat  late 
development  in  legal  systems.  Primitive  societies  do  not 
recognize  it,  or  recognize  it  but  feebly.  Perhaps  the  institu- 
tion of  contract  is  going  to  play  as  great  a  part  in  politics  as 
it  has  played  in  law. 

Nature    of   Federation. — Meantime,   we  may  notice 


VARIETIES   OF   POLITICAL   SOCIETY  157 

that  a  federation  takes  place  when  a  number  of  States  hitherto 
independent  of  each  other  (though  perhaps  dependent  on  a 
higher  power)  desire  union,  but  not  unity.  They  are  wiUing 
to  join  together  for  a  greater  or  less  number  of  purposes; 
but  each  of  them  desires  to  preserve  its  individual  existence, 
so  far  as  this  is  consistent  with  common  action.  The  terms 
of  federal  unions  are  in  no  two  cases  alike ;  but,  putting 
aside  the  cases  of  so-called  personal  unions*  where  two 
States  become,  as  it  were,  accidentally  connected  by  dynastic 
ties,  we  may  usefully  classify  them  under  the  following 
heads,  beginning  with  the  lowest  and  proceeding  to  the 
highest  degree  of  union. 

1.  Real  Unions. — These  occur  where  two  States  agree 
to  accept  permanently  the  same  ruler,  whilst  retaining  almost 
intact  their  independent  existence.  The  most  conspicuous 
example  in  modern  politics  is  the  case  of  Sweden  and 
Norway  ;  where  the  King  of  Sweden  is,  ipso  jure,  also  King 
of  Norway,  but  where  Norway  retains  her  independent  Par- 
liament and  local  institutions,  and  even  (it  would  now  seem) 
her  independent  foreign  relations.  The  Act  of  Union  of  1707 
converted  the  existing  personal  or  dynastic  union  of  England 
and  Scotland  into  a  real  union,  of  a  somewhat  closer  type 
than  Sweden-Norway,  for  the  Parliaments  of  the  two  cen- 
turies were  united,  as  well  as  their  thrones. 

2.  Confederations. — This,  at  one  time  a  rather  favourite 
type  of  union,  is  now  virtually  discarded  by  civilized  coun- 
tries, with,  perhaps,  one  striking  exception.  It  occurs  when 
two  or  more  States  join  together,  and  delegate,  either  per- 
manently or  for  a  limited  time,  a  limited  number  of  their 
inherent  powers  to  a  central  authority,  but  without  in  any 
way  merging  their  identity.  The  powers  delegated  are 
usually  only  of  a  legislative  and  military  character ;  the 
execution  and  administration  of  the  laws  of  the  central 
authority  are  left  to  the  officials  of  the  different  States  in  their 


•Such,  for  example,  as  England  and  Hannover  from  1714  to  1827. 


158  A    SHORT    HISTROY    OF    POLITICS 

own  territories.  Sometimes  tiie  powers  of  the  central 
authority  are  so  small  that  the  union  is  hardly  entitled  to 
rank  as  a  real  example  of  confederation  ;  as,  for  example, 
when  a  number  of  States  combine  to  form  a  Zollverein,  or 
Customs  Union.  But  usually  the  Confederate  Government 
is  empowered  to  maintain  an  army,  a  fact  which  almost 
necessarily  implies  control  of  the  foreign  policy  of  the  differ- 
ent States,  and  to  legislate  on  matters  of  common  interest, 
such  as  posts  and  telegraphs,  coinage,  criminal  offences,  and 
so  on.  Of  this  type  was  the  North  German  Confederation 
of  1866-70  ;  and  such  it  seems,  though  the  circumstances  are 
peculiar,  is  the  position  of  the  present  German  Empire, 
which,  though  it  has  vast  legislative  and  military  authority, 
has  very  little  executive,  administrative,  or  judicial  power.* 
In  this  last  feature  lies  the  real  weakness  of  the  confederation 
as  a  type  of  union.  The  central  body,  having  no  officials  to 
enforce  its  statutes,  is  obliged  to  resort  to  the  clumsy  ex- 
pedient of  so-called  federal  execution,  in  case  of  disobedi- 
ence to  its  laws  by  one  of  its  members.  This  expedient 
involves  invasion  of  the  offending  State  by  the  confederate 
army,  and,  of  course,  usually  results  in  a  break-up  of  the 
confederation.  In  Germany  this  unfortunate  tradition  was 
inherited  from  that  political  monstrosity  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire. 

Right  of  Secession. —  A  very  important  question  was 
raised  by  the  Southern  States  of  the  American  Union,  in  the 
unhappy  civil  war  of  the  sixties,  which  has  in  all  probability, 
done  much  to  discredit  this  type  of  government.  They 
maintained,  as  will  be  remembered,  that  the  Union  was  a 
Confederation,  and  that,  therefore,  any  of  its  members  who 
chose  might  withdraw.  The  event  of  the  war  was  against 
this  contention,  which  was,  indeed,  untenable  in  the  face  of 
the  executive,  administrative  and  judicial  organization  of  the 


♦Switzerland  seems  to  stand  on  the  border  line.  The  confederate 
government  has  little  direct  administrative  or  judicial  authority;  but 
it  has  a  good  deal  of  supervising  and  critical  authority. 


VARIETIES    OF    POLITICAL    SOCIETY  159 

Union.      Occasionally,   however,   the  right  of  secession  is 
expressly  reserved  by  the  pact  of  union.* 

3.  Federations. —  Far  more  important  is  the  tme  federal 
type  of  State,  in  which  the  central  authority  is  invested,  not 
merely  with  legislative  and  military,  but  with  executive  and 
judicial  authority.  Some  of  the  most  important  modem 
examples  of  State-making  fall  under  this  head.  It  is  the  type 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
and,  probably  in  the  near  future,  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Australia.  Indeed  it  seems  to  be  the  true  type  also  of  the 
anomalous  government  of  the  British  Empire,  which,  with  a 
few  important  but  feasible  alterations,  would  approximate 
closely  to  a  federal  constitution.  The  essential  features  of  a 
federal  constitution  have  been  admirably  sketched  by  Pro- 
fessor Dicey,  in  his  "Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Con- 
stitution," and  may  be  summarized  briefly  thus : — 

(a)  A  written  supreme  constitution^  in  order  to  prevent 
disputes  between  the  jurisdictions  of  the  Federal 
and  the  States'  authorities  ; 
{h)  A  distribution  of  powers^   between  the  central   or 
federal  government  and  the  governments  of  the 
several  States  which  comprise  the  union ;  and 
probably  also  among  the  various  parts  of  the 
federal  government ; 
{c)  A  Supreme  Court,  charged  with  the  duty  of  interpret- 
ing the  constitution,  and  enforcing  obedience  to 
it  by  the  organs  both  of  the  Federal  and  States' 
governments,  and  absolutely  free  from  the  influ- 
ence of  both. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  federal  type  of  government, 
in  all  its  forms,  has  its  weak  points.      Based  obviously  on 
compromise,   it  is  less  likely  than  national  or  centralized 
government  to  awaken  profound  enthusiasm,  or  to  gather 


•This  is  the  case  with  the  so-called  "Federal  Council  of  Austra- 
lasia," adopted  as  a  temporary  expedient  in  1885.  It  had  very  little 
success. 


l6o  A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

around  it  that  halo  of  patriotic  sentiment  which  is  one  of  the 
greatest  safeguards  of  a  State.  Complicated  as  its  machinery 
must  inevitably  be,  and  slow  in  its  working,  it  is  apt  to  get 
out  of  order  and  diflicult  to  stir  to  prompt  action.  It  was 
the  first  weakness  which  caused  the  heroic  founders  of 
modern  Italy  to  reject  the  federal  principle,  when  its  adop- 
tion would,  apparently,  have  solved  many  of  their  greatest 
difficulties.  The  second  weakness  has  been  unmistakably 
manifest  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  of  America  ;  and 
the  third  is  daily  obvious  in  the  procedure  of  Swiss  politics. 
But,  in  spite  of  these  drawbacks,  federalism  has  shown  a 
mar\'ellous  capacity  for  adapting  itself  to  different  circum- 
stances and  different  peoples  ;  and  it  is  probably  destined  to 
play  a  large  part  in  future  political  history. 

Common  Law  and  prepogative  States.— The  last 
classification  of  political  societies  which  we  shall  notice  is  one 
of  extreme  importance,  but  which  has  only  of  recent  years 
deserved  the  attention  which  it  merits.  It  divides  them  on 
the  one  hand  into  common  law,  and,  on  the  other,  into  pre- 
rogative States.  In  the  former  class,  all  persons,  officials  no 
less  than  private  individuals,  are  equal  before  the  law,  are 
judged  by  the  same  tribunals,  and  are  subject  to  the  same 
rules.  In  the  latter,  not  only  are  there  many  privileged 
individuals,  but  the  whole  great  class  of  Government  officials 
is  exempt  (wholly  or  partially)  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
ordinary  Courts  of  Justice.  To  the  first  class  belong,  sub- 
stantially speaking,  only  the  English-speaking  communities  ;* 
to  the  second  all  the  other  States  of  the  civilized  world.  It 
is,  therefore,  especially  important  that  English  readers  should 
quite  understand  what  the  distinction  means. 

Common  Law  States. — It  does  not  mean,  of  course, 
that  in  English-speaking  communities  a  Government  official 
may  not  do  what  in  a  private  person  would  be  unlawful. 


*The  principle  has  been  tried  and  abandoned  in  modem  Italy;  there 
is  some  trace  of  its  existence  in  Switzerland  and  Scandinavia. 


VARIETIES    OF    POLITICAL   SOCIETY  i6i 

Every  day  we  see  Government  officials  imprisoning  criminals, 
seizing  goods  for  debt,  searching  suspected  houses,  and  doing 
many  other  things  which  no  private  person  may  do.  But  it 
does  mean — 

(i)  That  no  Government  official  may  do  these  things 
without  legal  authority  ; 

(ii)  That,  if  his  authority  is  questioned,  it  must  be  proved 
by  him  in  precisely  the  same  way,  and  before  precisely  the 
same  tribunals,  as  in  the  case  of  a  private  person  accused  of  a 
similar  act.*  If  the  act  would  have  been  criminal  in  a  private 
person,  the  official  may  be  prosecuted  in  a  criminal  court ;  if 
it  would  have  been  only  a  civil  wrong  in  a  private  person, 
the  official  can  be  sued  for  it  in  an  ordinary  civil  court.  And 
neither  of  these  tribunals  will  accept  any  plea  of  "act  of 
State,"  or  "superior  orders,"  as  an  answer  to  such  a  com- 
plaint, at  any  rate  when  the  complaint  is  made  by  a  citizen. 
The  net  result  is  that  the  Government  officials  in  an  Eng- 
lish-speaking country  are  subject  to  the  ordinary  or  com- 
mon  law. 

Prerogative  States. — In  other  countries  just  the  oppo- 
sive  rules  prevail.  On  the  one  hand,  Government  officials, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  act  in  what  they  believe  to  be 
the  interest  of  the  State,  whether  or  no  they  have  legal 
authority  for  their  actions.  On  the  other,  their  acts  cannot 
be  questioned  by  the  ordinary  tribunals,  at  any  rate  without 
the  consent  of  their  official  superiors.  The  net  result  is  what 
the  French  call  droit  administratif,  a  phrase  for  which  there 
is  really  no  English  equivalent,  but  which  means  law  upon 
which  only  a  Government  official  is  entitled  to  act,  and  which 


*  It  must  be  admitted  that,  even  in  ^".common  law"  countries,  there 
are  some  exceptions  to  this  rule.  For  example,  in  England,  the  King 
or  Queen  is  personally  exempt  from  suit,  though  his  or  her  subordi- 
nates cannot  plead  orders  as  an  excuse  for  illegal  conduct.  Peers  are 
privileged  in  the  matter  of  tribunal  (not  of  law).  Members  of  Parlia- 
ment are  temporarily  privileged  in  respect  of  minor  offences.  But  these 
exceptions  are  infinitesimal  compared  with  the  list  in  Continental 
countries. 


I62  A    SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

is,  in  effect,  what  the  Government  chooses  to  make  it. 
Under  cover  of  this  so-called  "law,"  the  ordinary  citizen  is 
subjected,  in  foreign  countries,  to  an  amount  of  supervision 
and  arbitrary  interference  which  would  produce  a  revolution 
in  England  in  a  twelvemonth.  And  this,  in  spite  of  the  most 
solemn  guarantees  of  individual  freedom  in  constitutional 
documents. 

How  the  difference  arose.— A  thoughtful  Americaa 
writer,  Mr.  Lawrence  Lowell,  has  indicated,  no  doubt  with 
accuracy,  the  cause  for  the  existence  of  the  distinction.  It 
is  just  one  of  those  cases  in  which  history  furnishes  the  only 
clue  to  the  solution  of  a  modern  difficulty.  In  England  the 
judicial  side  of  State  activity  developed  with  great  complete- 
ness long  before  the  administrative  side.  Consequently, 
when  administrative  activity  began  to  increase,  it  found  itself 
confronted  with  a  powerful  and  highly  organized  system  of 
judicial  tribunals,  which  jealously  kept  it  in  check.  There 
was  a  severe  struggle,  which  covered  the  whole  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  in  England,  and  lasted  well  on  into  the 
eighteenth.  But,  in  the  long  run,  the  law  courts  triumphed  ; 
and  Englishmen  reaped  the  benefit,  not  only  in  their  old 
country,  but  in  those  new  countries  to  which  they  carried  the 
birthright  of  English  comtnon  law.  On  the  Continent,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  administrative  authority  of  the  State  devel- 
oped long  before  \.\\e  judicial ;  and  men  learned  to  look  upon 
the  administrative  officials  of  the  State  as  earthly  providences, 
while  the  State's  law  courts  were  weak,  and  commanded  no 
particular  respect.  Quite  naturally,  when  the  State's  law 
courts  were  at  length  organized  upon  systematic  lines,  the 
administrative  officials  declined  to  submit  their  conduct  to  the 
scrutiny  of  the  new  tribunals.  In  fact,  they  utterly  refused  to 
believe  in  the  possibility  of  stable  government  on  such  terms. 
In  the  view  of  every  Continental  Minister,  Government 
oflficials  must,  if  they  wish  to  maintain  order,  frequently  violate 
the  ordinary  law.  And  to  have  their  authority  questioned  by 
ordinary  tribunals  would,  he  argpaes,  be  entirely  subversive 


VARIETIES   OF    POLITICAL    SOCIETY  163 

of  discipline.  If  it  is  pointed  out  to  such  a  man  that  Anglo- 
Saxon  Governments,  all  the  world  over,  enjoy  a  stability 
which  is  certainly  not  less  than  that  of  their  Continental 
contemporaries,  he  shrugs  his  shoulders,  and  enters  the  fact 
as  one  more  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  peculiar  Anglo-Saxon. 
One  humorous  feature  of  the  situation  should  not,  however, 
be  overlooked.  When  Montesquieu  and  other  French  writers 
of  the  eighteenth  century  dilated  to  their  countrymen  upon 
the  virtues  of  the  British  constitution,  one  of  the  chief  excel- 
lences which  they  praised  was  the  so-called  ' '  separation  of 
powers."  Now  the  real  "separation  of  powers"  which  the 
British  constitution  of  the  eighteenth  century  actually  enjoyed 
was  the  freedom  of  the  law  courts  from  the  control  of  the 
Ministers.  But  the  French,  and,  after  them,  the  other  poli- 
ticians of  the  Continent,  took  it  to  mean  the  freedom  of  the 
Ministers  from  the  control  of  the  law  courts.  And,  when  the 
governments  of  the  continent  were  reconstructed  after  the 
French  Revolution,  this  was  the  form  in  which  the  British 
principle  appeared.  Truly,  logic  is  sometimes  a  dangerous 
instrument. 

Here  must  end  our  imperfect  attempt  to  evolve  order  out 
of  the  chaos  of  History.  Those  readers  to  whom  the  political 
arrangements  of  the  world  represent  merely  the  outcome  of 
a  series  of  local  accidents  will  have  little  sympathy  with  an 
effort  based  on  a  totally  different  belief.  But  to  those  who, 
with  the  writer,  regard  History  as  the  outward  manifestation 
of  great  universal  laws,  capable  of  infinite  variety  in  the 
circumstances  of  their  application,  but  tending  with  irresistible 
impetus  to  similar  ends,  this  attempt  may  seem  to  have  been 
made  not  altogether  in  vain.  Regarded  from  one  standpoint, 
the  Art  of  Politics  may  appear  to  be  nothing  but  the  "  scuf- 
fling of  kites  and  crows."  Regarded  from  another,  it  is  an 
effort,  miserable  and  imperfect  perhaps,  but  still  an  effort,  to 
realize  that  deep-seated  instinct  of  humanity  which  bids  Man 
turn  for  help  and  guidance  to  his  fellow  Man.   It  is  an  afiirma- 


I64  A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF   POLITICS 

tion,  on  unmistakable  lines,  of  that  social  side  of  our  nature 
which  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  fundamental  facts 
of  the  universe.  As  such,  it  is  surely  worth  earnest  and  impar- 
tial study;  and  all  the  dreary  and  repellent  accessories  which 
attend  its  practice  cannot  disguise  its  essential  importance. 
The  day  may  be  far  distant  when  the  actual  political  arrange- 
ments of  the  world  will  realize  the  highest  ideal  of  which  our 
social  instincts  are  capable.  But  every  life  honestly  spent  in 
the  faithful  service  of  the  common  weal,  every  hour  devoted 
to  the  earnest  study  of  the  public  good  brings  that  day  more 
surely  within  our  reach. 


A  SHORT  LIST  OF 

USEFUL   AUTHORITIES 

Type    I — Savage    Society 

Spencer,  W.  B.  and  Gillen,  F.  J.      The  Native   Tribes  of 

Central  Australia.     London,  1899. 
FisoN,  L.  and   Howitt,  A.  W.      Kamilaroi  and  Kurnai. 

Melbourne,  1880. 
Morgan,  L.  H.     Ancient  Society.     London,  1877. 

Type  II — Patriarchal    Society 

Seebohm,  F.     The  Tribal  System  in  Wales.     London,  1895. 
Seebohm,  F.      The  English  Village  Community.     London, 

1883. 
Roe,  Sir  C.  A.      Tribal  Law  in  the  Panjab.     Lahore,  n.  d. 
Skene,  W.  F.     Celtic  Scotland.     (Vol.  IIL)      Edinburgh, 

1880. 
Galton,  Sir  F.    Narrative  of  an  Explorer.    London,  1853. 
Coulanges,  F.  de.     La  CitS  Antique.     Paris,  1864. 

There  have  been  English  translations  or  adaptations  of  this 
work,  e.  g.— 

Small,  W.     The  Ancient  City.     Boston,  1874. 

Barker,  T.  C.     Aryan  Civilization.     Chipping  Nor- 
ton, 1&71. 

(165) 


x66  BRIEF    BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Powell,  B.  H.  Baden.       The  Indian   Village  Community. 
London,  1896. 
Larger  works  on  the  same  subject  by  the  same  author  are — 
The  Land  Systems  of  British  India.     Oxford,  1892. 
Short  Account  of  the    Land    Revenue    Systems  of 
British  India.     Oxford,  1894. 
Brentano,  L.     English  Gilds.     London,  1870. 

Type  III — Modern  (Political)  Society 

Dicey,  A.  V.     The  Law  of  the  Constitution.     London,  1885. 
Lowell,  A.  L.      Government  and  Parties  in  Continental 
Europe.     London,  1896. 

Local  Government  and  Taxation.     London,  1875. 

(A  volume  of  Cobden  Club  Essays  by  various  writers.) 
Fyffe,  C.  a.     a  History  of  Modern  Europe.     London, 

1 891. 
Bryce,  James.     The   United  States  of  America.    London, 

1891. 
Bluntschli.     The    Theory  of  the  State.     Oxford,    1885. 

Trans. 


INDEX 


Administration,  140,  146,  162. 

— aspects  of,  146. 

— and  justice,  i6a. 

— of  justice,  112. 

Adoption,  16,  69,  70. 

Agency,  129, 136. 

Agnatic  succession,  32. 

Agriculture,  44,  46, 102. 

— and  the  clan,  44,  sqq. 

— early  methods  of,  46. 

— organization  of,  50. 

Alienation  of  land,  104. 

Allegiance,  2,  77. 

— military,  77. 

Ancestor  worship,  38,  39,  68,  78 

Animals,  domestication  of,  20, 

as- 

Apprenticeship,  69.  [g^ 

Australian  aborigines,  6,  7,  44, 
— system  of  relationship,  11. 
Aristotle's    Classification     o  f 
States,  151. 

Barter  and  sale,  65. 

Birth,  as  title  to  property,  102. 

Black  Death,  the,  143. 

Blood  feud,  the,  14, 42, 112, 113, 

115,  "6. 
Blood  fines,  42,  log. 


Capital,  conception  of,  31. 
Caste,  Indian  system  of,  69. 
Cattle  lending,  34,  81. 
Champion,  the,  36. 
Chief,  the,  35,  56. 
— of  the  clan,  72. 
— of  the  tribe,  72. 
Chiefship,  disappearance  of,  85. 
Christianity,  effect  of,  78. 
Church  and  State,  78,  87. 
Church,  effect  of  the,  on  land, 

109. 
Clan,  the,  19,  72,  etc. 
Clergy,  the,  131. 
Crime,  113. 

Criminal  law  in  early  times,  116. 
Codification,  122. 
Coined  money,  66. 
Colleges,  religious,  40, 
Commendation,  81. 
Commerce,  64. 
Common  Law  States,  160. 
Communication,  means  of,  141. 
Competition,  21. 
Composite  States,  156. 
Confederations,  157. 
Conquest,  76. 
Constable,  54. 
Constitutional  Government,  88. 


(167) 


i68 


INDEX 


Coiistilutiotis,  rigid  or  flexible, 

153- 

Contract,  priiiriple  of,  in  poli- 
tics, 156. 

Convertible  husbandry,  50. 

Council,  the,  37,  88,  89-92,  131. 

Courts  of  Law,  126. 

Crops,  alternations  of,  47. 

Custom,  41,  54,  70,  79,  89,  126. 

— enforced  by  State  becomes 
legislation,  134. 

Curfew,  the,  142. 

Curia,  the,  131. 

Debts,  109. 

de  Coulanges,  Fustel,  39,  55. 

Domestication  of  animals,  20, 

23- 

Dooms,  119. 

Droit  Adtninistratif,  161. 

Ealdorman,  the,  69. 
Elective  Monarchy,  87. 
Enclosure  movement,  51,   109, 

no. 
Estates,  representation  of,  131- 

134- 
Exchange,  64,  100. 
Exclusiveness    o  f    patriachal 

societies,  70. 
— of  early  States,  21. 

Fealty,  81. 

Federal  Constitutions,  159. 
— States,  156,  etc. 
Feudalism,  80,  117,  118. 
— English  form  of,  117,  118. 
— hereditary  character  of,  118. 
— the  State  and,  117. 
Fictions,  128,  137. 
Field-grass  system,  47. 


Fines,  42,  112. 
Forest  clearings,  46. 
Forfeiture,  1 14. 
Fosterage,  16,  59. 

Gild,  tho,  62,  68,  69,  72,  81,  144. 
— character  of  the,  68. 
— dissolution  of  the,  144. 
Government,  i,  89. 
— activity  of,  90. 
— constitutional,  89. 
— constitutional  and  autocratic, 
152- 

Headman,  the,  54. 
Heir-apparent,  the,  36. 
Hereditarj'  kingship,  86. 
Holdings  of  land,  52,  54. 
Household,  the,  19,  72. 
Hue  and  cry,  114. 
Hundred-moot,  the,  130. 

Industry,  62,  63-66. 
— specialization  of,  64, 
Inheritance,  104. 
Institutions,  4,  84. 
Iron,  use  of,  62. 
Itinerant  judges,  117,  127. 

Joint  liability,  130. 
Judges,  118. 
— itinerant,  117,  127. 
Jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  122. 
Jury,  origin  of,  121. 
— foundation  of,  127. 
Justice,  112,  sqq. 
Justice     and    administration, 
conflict  of,  162. 

King  and  council,  88. 


INDEX 


169 


King's  highway,  141. 
—peace,  95,  114,  115. 
— representatives,  91. 
Kingship,  84-S9. 
— becomes  elective,  86. 
— becomes  hereditary,  86. 
— religious,  87. 
Kinship,  2,  II,  38,  57,  59. 
— male,  16,  26. 

Labour,  27,  52,  82,  loi,  no,  143. 

— State  re.i^ulation  of,  52,  143. 

Land,  57,  58,  100,  102,  103,  104- 
107. 

— alienation  of,  108. 

— ownership  of,  105,  106. 

— private  property  in,  99,  103. 

Landlordism,  104. 

Landlords  and  the  State,  107. 

Landowners,  representation  of, 

ISO- 
Law,  124,  sqi]. 

Law  courts,  126. 

— savage, 13. 

— tribal,  40,  43. 

— uniformity  of,  125. 

Law.s,  fundamental  and  ordi- 
nary, 153. 

Legal  days,  120. 

Legal  frictions,  128. 

—  forms,  120. 

Leges  Barbarorum,  125. 

Legislation,  124,  128,  134. 

jL^^  ialionis,  42. 

Local  government,  130,  154. 

Lord  and  landlord,  106. 

Lordships,  94,  104,  no. 

Majorities,  doctrine  of,  135-139. 
Market,  66,  68. 


Marriage,  9,  16,  27,  29. 

—  by  capture,  28. 

—  by  purchase,  29. 

—  rules  of,  29. 
Meadow  land,  51. 
Metals,  precious,  66. 

—  work  in,  62,  75. 
Migration,  77. 
Militarism,  79. 
Military  allegiance,  77. 

—  service,  2,  82,  92. 

—  societies,  type  of,  2.         rj_g 
Modern    political    machinery, 

—  religion,  39. 

—  societies,  70,  73. 
Money,  66. 
Moots,  131. 

Nation,  not  identical  with  State, 

147. 
Nobility,  degrees  of,  35. 

—  new,  79,  80. 
Noblts,  the,  131. 
Nomadism,  57. 

Oath  of  kindred,  the,  34,  121. 
Offences,  private,  116. 

—  public,  113. 

—  of  violence,  112. 
Offices,  104,  etc. 

—  hereditary,  105. 
Officials,  72. 

—  Government,  rights  and  lia- 
bilities of,  i6o. 

—  of  village,  54. 
Open  fields,  50,  109. 
Ordaining  power  of  crown,  134. 
Ordeal,  the,  121. 
Organization,  vaneties  of,  152. 
Outlawry,  114. 


lyo 


INDEX 


Pack,  the,  8,  19. 
Parliament,  the,  131-133. 

—  original  duties  of,  133. 
Pastoral  pursuits,  26,  27,  30. 
Paternal  authority,  17. 
Patria  potestas,  17. 
Patriarchal  household,  3. 

—  societies,  2,  3,  16,  18,  69,  70. 

and  modem  societies,  69. 

Patricians,  3. 

Peers,  trial  by,  117. 

Personal  union,  20. 

Petitions,  133. 

Pets,  keeping  of,  14. 

Plague,  the,  143. 

Plebeians,  3. 

Police,  142. 

Politics,  I,  2. 

Political  representation,  128, 146. 

—  society,  varieties  of,  73,  151. 
Polygamy,  17. 

Poor  laws,  145. 
Posts,  141. 
Prerogative,  134. 

—  States,  160. 
Private  oflenses,  116. 

—  property,  no. 
Production,  64. 

Profit,  conception  of,  31. 

—  of  officials,  105. 
Property,  26,  30, 97-105, 108,  m . 

—  individual,  in. 

—  origin  of,  26. 

—  private.  In  land,  103. 

—  stages  in  history  of,  97,  99, 
100,  107. 

—  State  and,  104,  in. 
Proselytism,  39. 
Public  health,  146. 

—  property,  98. 


Punishment,  114. 

Purchase  as  giving  title,  los. 

Ranks,  34,  35. 
Record,  proof  by,  121. 
Records,  125. 

Relationship,  systems  of,  11. 
Religion,  38,  40,  78,  87. 

—  modern,  39. 

—  tribal,  38. 
Religious  colleges,  40. 

—  secrecy,  40. 
Rent,  52,  56,  68,  105. 

—  money,  52. 
Representation  of  estates,  130. 

132- 

—  political,  128,  146. 
Representatives,    election    of, 

136. 

—  of  King,  91. 
Revenue,  in,  142. 
Right,  a,  97. 

Sacrifice,  13,  38. 

Sale,  savage  forms  of,  67. 

—  of  village  land,  108. 
Sanctuary,  114. 
Savage  law,  8,  13. 
Scatt,  92. 

Scottish  laws,  59. 

Sea,  the,  no  property  in,  99. 

Secession,  158. 

Separation  of  powers,  163. 

Sept,  the,  18. 

Serfdom,  dissolution  of,  144. 

Serfs,  33,  55. 

Sheriffs,  117. 

Shire,  the,  91. 

Shire-moot,  131. 

Slavery,  27,  28. 


INDEX 


X7I 


Society,  i. 

—  modem,    political,  73,  etc., 

151. 
Sovereignty,  151,  153. 
Specialization,  64,  75. 
Standards    of     measure    and 

value,  143. 
State  administration,  146-150. 
State  and  administration,  140, 

etc. 

—  "     feudalism,  117. 

—  "     landlords,  104. 

—  "     legislation,  124. 

—  "     property,97, 104,  III. 

—  becomes  individual,  80. 

—  character  of,  77,  140. 

—  Church  and,  79,  88. 

—  interference,  145-148. 

—  justice  of,  112,  118,  119. 

—  origin  of  modern,  in  warfare, 

73,  75- 

—  socialism,  143. 

—  the  territorial,  77. 

States,  classification  of ,  151,^5'^. 

—  common  law  and  preroga- 
tive, 160. 

—  composite,  156. 

—  federal,  156. 

—  organization  of,  84. 
Statute  of  Winchester,  55. 
Succession,  agnatic,  32, 

Taxation,  133. 
Taxes,  105. 
Territorial  States,  77. 

—  union,  20. 

—  waters,  100. 
Theft,  112. 
Theology,  39. 
Three-field  system,  48. 


Tithings,  14*. 
Tokens,  65. 
Totem,  the,  12. 

—  group,  the,  9. 
Totemistic  societies,  3,  9-12. 
Townsmen,  representation  of, 

132. 
Trades  Unions,  145. 
Traditions,  89. 
Treason,  116. 
Trial  by  battle,  114,  HI. 

—  by  jury,  122. 
Tribal  chief,  the,  72. 

—  land,  37. 

—  law,  40,  43. 

—  organization,  32,  etc.,  56. 
Tribal  religion,  38. 
Tribe,  the,  8,  18,  32,  70. 
Tribes,  consolidation  of,  76. 
— differentiation  of,  30. 

— membership  of,  33. 
— officials  of,  35. 
— pastoral,  29. 
Tribunals,  122. 
Tribute,  forms  of,  92. 
Two-field  system,  48. 

Unearned  increment,  106. 
Union  and  unity,  157. 
Unions,  classification  of,   157, 

etc. 
—real,  157. 

User  of  land,  limited,  103. 
—the  germ  of  property,  100. 

Value,  standards  of,  65,  143. 

Vassals,  81. 

Village,  the,  50,  etc. 

— agricultural,  the,  103,  etc. 

— communities,  51,  etc. 


172 


INDEX 


Village  communities,  dissolu- 
tion of,  107. 

— craftsmen,  66. 

— custom,  no. 

— lordship,  60. 

— officials,  54. 

— organization,  56. 

—origin  of,  55,  56. 

Villagers,  the,  become  tenants, 
108. 

Violence,  114. 

War,  75,  80,  92. 


War  bands,  German,  75, 
Waste,  51,52. 
Wealth,  74. 
— of  nations,  145. 
Weapons,  75,  loi. 
Welsh  chief,  the,  35. 
— laws,  58. 
— societies,  17. 
Witnesses,  121. 
Worship,  38,  39,  68,  78. 
Wrongs,  bootless,  113. 

Zollverein,  158. 


GLOSSARY 


Agha,  52,  56. 
Alcheringa,  the,  11. 
Alltud,  33,  58. 

Balks,  51. 
Ballys,  58. 
Birraark,  the,  11 
Boaire,  the,  30,  34,  57. 
Bothach, 34. 
Brehons,  37. 

Caeth,  34. 
Cantred,  58. 
Ceile,  56,  60. 
Ciniud,  57. 
Corroboree,  10. 
Cro,  42. 
Cyning,  35. 

Davoch,  59. 
Dialwr,  36. 

Etch  grain,  50. 
Engrossing,  71. 
Eric,  42. 

Feastings,  56,  60. 
Far  Midba,  34. 
Fin6,  57. 


Flaith,  the,  57. 
Forestalling,  71. 
Frith-gild,  68. 
Fuidhir,  33,  57. 

Galanas,  42. 
Gesith,  75. 
Gwely,  58. 

Heretoch,  36,  76. 
Henadwr,  37. 
Husbandland,  59. 

Jirgah,  37. 

Khan,  35. 
Khiraj,  60. 

Mab,  the,  17. 
Maiden  fee,  60, 
Moot,  54. 
Mormaer,  35. 

Nardoo,  44. 
Nem^,  30. 

Panchayat,  37. 
Parker,  54. 
Pen,  35, 


(173) 


174 


GLOSSARY 


Pound,  54. 
Princeps,  75. 

Rachimburg,  37. 
Reeve,  54. 
Ri-  35. 

Seisrigh,  58. 
Sencleithe,  the,  34. 
Steelbow  lands,  <9. 
Synnachies,  38. 

Taboo,  13. 
Taeog,  34. 
Tanist,  36. 
Teisbanteuleu,  36. 
Tenandrie,  59. 


Thane,  76. 
Thaneston,  59. 
Tilth  grain,  50. 
Tir  Gwelyawg,  59 
Toisech,  36. 
Tricha  Ceds,  58. 
Tumand^r,  85. 

Uchelwr,  58. 

Veliki  Kniaz,  36. 
Vesh,  53, 

Wer,  4a. 

Yardling,  52,  56. 

Zamindar.  53. 


AA    001  002  125    1 


CENTRAL  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
University  of  California,  San  Diego 

DATE  DUE 


Wt^i^.m 

MOV  2  5  RECP 

CI  39 

UCSD  Libr. 

